# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - February 13, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 13, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3244 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3244?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-02-13 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 26,927 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on February 13, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which addressed five agenda items related to residential and commercial development projects. The Commission took 12 motions and votes during the session and heard 7 public comments. Four of the five agenda items were approved: Willow Glen, Unit 4, Lot 1 (Amendment); Coventry (Belmont Farms), Unit 8; Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3; and Locust Hill Shopping Center (Parcel 1, Lot 1, Block A) (Amendment). One item, Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 1 (Amendment), was postponed. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Bill Wilson, Chris King, Bill Sallee, Barbara Rackers, Tom Martin, David Jarman, Kelly Hunter, Cheryl Gallt, Denice Bullock, Hillard Newman, Casey Kaucher, Captain Greg Lengal, Lieutenant Joshua Thiel, Tim Queary, and Tracy Jones. **Absent:** Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, and Frank Penn. **Late:** None reported. ## Votes and Decisions The Planning Commission took the following actions on February 13, 2014: **Postponements** - **DP 2013-29: Headley, Niven & Vance Property, Lots 1, 2 & 3 (AMD)** — Postponed by voice vote. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Bill Wilson. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 0:37:46] - **DP 2014-4: Lansbrook Plaza Shopping Center** — Postponed by voice vote. Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 0:38:51] - **DP 2012-105: Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 1 (AMD)** — Postponed for 30 days by voice vote. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Mike Cravens. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 3:44:22] **Approvals** - **Consent Agenda items: PLAN 2014-3F, PLAN 2012-132F, DP 2014-5, DP 2014-6** — Approved by voice vote with conditional approval including standard sign-off conditions and findings for access easement compliance. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Karen Mundy. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 0:42:37] - **PLAN 2014-2F: Willow Glen, Unit 4, Lot 1 (AMD)** — Approved by voice vote with multiple conditions including Urban County Engineer's acceptance of drainage and sewers, Traffic Engineer's approval of street cross-sections, and Urban Forester's approval of tree protection areas. Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Karen Mundy. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 0:57:19] - **Waiver to Article 6-8(b) of the Land Subdivision Regulations for PLAN 2014-2F** — Approved by voice vote with conditions regarding access easement construction standards. Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Karen Mundy. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 0:59:30] - **Waiver of Article 4-7(d)(1) for PLAN 2013-128F** — Approved by voice vote. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 1:06:42] - **Waiver of Article 6-6 (Sanitary Sewer) for PLAN 2013-128F** — Approved by voice vote. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 1:07:55] - **DP 2013-90: Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3** — Approved by voice vote with revised staff conditions including reducing townhouses from 10 to 9 and relocating the dumpster. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Bill Wilson. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 2:18:29] - **DP 2014-1: Locust Hill Shopping Center (Parcel 1, Lot 1, Block A) (AMD)** — Approved by voice vote with conditions regarding tree canopy documentation and square footage relocation. Motion by David Drake, seconded by Bill Wilson. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 2:33:23] - **Release and call of bonds for Park Hills Shopping Center** — Approved by voice vote. Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bill Wilson. All seven members voted in favor. [timestamp: 2:34:50] **Disapprovals** - **Waiver of Article 4-7(d)(9) (Performance Surety) for PLAN 2013-128F** — Disapproved by voice vote. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. All seven members voted in favor of disapproval. [timestamp: 1:07:22] All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded abstentions or opposing votes. ## Public Comment Seven speakers addressed the commission during the public comment period, with remarks focused on two primary development proposals: the Springdale Subdivision and a McDonald's site plan. **Springdale Subdivision Opposition** T. Bergman spoke at [timestamp: 1:37:07] representing the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization, expressing concerns about the proposed townhouses. The organization opposed increased density, traffic impacts, and the visual effect on the neighborhood, arguing the plan would harm neighborhood character and property values. Helen Morrison commented at [timestamp: 1:50:11] that the development plan lacks thoughtful design and fails to consider neighborhood character. She emphasized the need for creative problem-solving and community input in the planning process. Patricia Dillon spoke at [timestamp: 1:56:22], sharing personal attachment to her home and neighborhood. She cited mature trees, walkability, and community feel as valued features, and urged the commission to protect the area from development that threatens its quality of life. **McDonald's Site Plan and Traffic Concerns** Reza Timaji raised traffic safety concerns at [timestamp: 2:59:55], expressing worry that McDonald's drive-through traffic would overwhelm the Arby's parking lot and create dangerous congestion at the Pimlico Parkway intersection. He urged an independent traffic study. John Talbot spoke at [timestamp: 3:06:57] opposing the proposed exit across Arby's parking lot. He argued this plan unfairly burdens the shopping center and that McDonald's should provide a dedicated exit on their own property. **Development Support** Roderick Saylor responded at [timestamp: 3:16:39], defending the plan by stating the development is self-contained and that the shopping center has not been willing to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. Gus Macera spoke at [timestamp: 3:30:12] in support of the McDonald's site plan, confirming the company's support for the current proposal and expressing confidence it will function properly with multiple access points and no significant traffic issues. ## Contested Items **Springdale Subdivision Development** The proposed Springdale Subdivision development faced strong community opposition during the meeting. Neighbors raised concerns about the project's density, potential traffic impacts, and effects on neighborhood character. The public comment period was notably heated, reflecting the intensity of local sentiment against the plan. Despite the opposition, the project ultimately received approval, though it was conditioned on revisions to address the community's concerns. **Park Hills Shopping Center McDonald's Access** A contentious debate arose over the proposed access design for a McDonald's location at Park Hills Shopping Center. The disagreement centered on traffic impact and the proposed exit route across the shopping center's parking lot. The Arby's owner and shopping center representatives opposed the plan, citing concerns about the proposed access design and its effects on their operations. McDonald's and the project applicant defended the proposal. The intensity of this discussion reflected the competing interests between the new tenant, existing businesses, and traffic management considerations. ## WILLOW GLEN, UNIT 4, LOT 1 (AMD) **Identifier:** PLAN 2014-2F **Type:** Discussion **Outcome:** Approved The Planning Commission reviewed and approved an amendment to the Willow Glen, Unit 4, Lot 1 subdivision [timestamp: 0:43:29]. The proposal involved subdividing one lot into two lots, eliminating vehicular access to Old Mt. Tabor Road, and creating a private access easement. **Key Speakers:** - Cheryl Gallt - Tom Martin - Rory Kahly **Action Taken:** The Commission approved the amendment with a waiver granted to Article 6-8(b) of the Land Subdivision Regulations. This waiver allowed the project to proceed with modifications to standard subdivision requirements. ## COVENTRY (BELMONT FARMS), UNIT 8 **Plan:** 2013-128F The Commission discussed and voted on waivers for the Coventry (Belmont Farms), Unit 8 project, which involves the construction of an elementary school. [timestamp: 1:00:04] **Waivers Approved** The Commission approved waivers to the following articles: - Article 4-7(d)(1) - Article 4-7(d)(9) - Article 6-6 **Waiver Disapproved** The Commission disapproved the performance surety waiver. **Key Participants** Tom Martin and Rory Kahly were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Outcome** The overall agenda item was approved, with the Commission granting the requested waivers to Articles 4-7(d)(1), 4-7(d)(9), and 6-6 while rejecting the performance surety waiver request. ## SPRINGDALE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 2, BLOCK A, LOTS 1, 2 & 3 **Identifier:** DP 2013-90 The Commission discussed and approved the development plan for Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3. [timestamp: 1:08:26] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Tom Martin, Nick Nicholson, T. Bergman, Helen Morrison, and Patricia Dillon. **Outcome** The Commission approved the development plan with revised conditions. The approval included two significant modifications to the original proposal: * Reduction of the number of townhouses from 10 to 9 * Relocation of the dumpster to a less prominent site ## LOCUST HILL SHOPPING CENTER (PARCEL 1, LOT 1, BLOCK A) (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2014-1 The Commission discussed an amendment to the Locust Hill Shopping Center development proposal [timestamp: 2:26:38]. The amendment proposed the addition of a new restaurant and fuel center to the existing shopping center. **Key Speakers** Bill Sallee and Bob Cornett presented and discussed the amendment with the Commission. **Outcome** The Commission approved the amendment with conditions. The approval required clarification of tree canopy data and relocation of square footage to another area of the property. These conditions were imposed to address concerns raised during the discussion and ensure compliance with applicable development standards. ## PARK HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, LOT 1 (AMD) **Case Number:** DP 2012-105 The Commission discussed the reapproval of the development plan for Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 1. Key speakers included Bill Sallee, Chris Westover, Reza Timaji, John Talbot, Roderick Saylor, and Gus Macera. [timestamp: 2:35:25] **Issues Discussed** The primary focus of the discussion centered on access and exit issues for the shopping center. Specific concerns were raised regarding traffic flow and the need for reciprocal easements to properly address how vehicles would enter and exit the property and interact with adjacent parcels. **Outcome** The Commission postponed reapproval of the plan for 30 days. This postponement was intended to provide the applicant and shopping center operators adequate time to resolve the outstanding access and exit issues before the plan could be reapproved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone DP 2013-29: Headley, Niven & Vance Property, Lots 1, 2 & 3 (AMD) - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone DP 2014-4: Lansbrook Plaza Shopping Center - **Motion** — passed: Approve Consent Agenda items: PLAN 2014-3F, PLAN 2012-132F, DP 2014-5, DP 2014-6 - **Motion** — passed: Approve PLAN 2014-2F: Willow Glen, Unit 4, Lot 1 (AMD) - **Motion** — passed: Grant waiver to Article 6-8(b) of the Land Subdivision Regulations for PLAN 2014-2F - **Motion** — passed: Approve waiver of Article 4-7(d)(1) for PLAN 2013-128F - **Motion** — passed: Disapprove waiver of Article 4-7(d)(9) (Performance Surety) for PLAN 2013-128F - **Motion** — passed: Approve waiver of Article 6-6 (Sanitary Sewer) for PLAN 2013-128F - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2013-90: Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2 & 3 with revised staff conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve DP 2014-1: Locust Hill Shopping Center (Parcel 1, Lot 1, Block A) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed: Release and call of bonds for Park Hills Shopping Center - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone DP 2012-105: Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 1 (AMD) for 30 days --- ## Full transcript It's probably one of the safest conditions for a bike and pedestrian foot around a person on a bike when you pass them in a motor vehicle for safety. And then for people who ride bikes, things like be safe, be seen, wear reflective clothing, use lights, and then respect the red. Quite often you'll see people blow through a stoplight, and I think that applies to both. Right. And we've had those on. Can I overcome any of the obstacles? Every time a truck is dispatched, is an EMS unit dispatched as well? No, EMS runs, we have certain runs that get first responders automatically based on their severity. So if somebody's having chest pain, then they'll get both an ambulance and a fire engine. If it's somebody who just maybe has hurt their arm, they'll probably just get an EC unit, unless that EC unit is all the way across town, and then we'll send a fire truck to get somebody there faster. Because that's something the public doesn't understand. I've had that question posed to me several times, is why is there a fire truck and an EC unit? And that's because of the severity? Sometimes it's severity, sometimes it's time. We strive to have somebody on scene at least in under seven minutes. And really kind of your golden standard is to try and get them there in four. So if we can get a fire engine there and start helping whoever's in need, and it takes another five, six minutes to get the ambulance there, then we're providing a better customer service. Thank you so much for letting me interview you today, and thank you so much for your service. I can only tell you that every little girl now that has these type of role models will be thinking about becoming a firefighter, or other ladies as well. But again, I wanted to stress that these are firefighters who just happen to be female, and they can do anything that their male counterparts can do, obviously do it very well else they wouldn't be here and you have to go through a rigorous series of tests and physical agility and again my great thanks to you and everything you do for the City of Lexington we couldn't do this without you thank you very much We'll be right back. El Dorado too He got a .32 gun In his pocket for fun He got a razor in his shoe And he's best Best, best, best Leroy Brown Better than a man In the whole damn town Better than O'Keefe Meaner than a junkyard dog We're Friday About a week ago Leroy shooting dice And at the edge of the bar Saw the girl named Doris And oh, that girl looked nice Well, he cast his eyes upon her And the trouble soon began And Leroy Brown He turned his mess about a mess With the wife of a jealous man And he's bad, bad, bad, bad Leroy Brown Baddest man in a world downtown Badder than old King Kong Meaner than a junkyard dog Well, the two men took to fighting And when they pulled down from the floor Leroy looked like a jigsaw Cause a whip a couple of pieces gone And it's bad, bad Leroy Brown Baddest man in a whole damn town Badder than O'Keefe Meaner than a junkyard dog Bad, bad, bad, hero crown Baddest man in a road downtown Badder than old King Kong Meaner than a drunk y'all dog Yeah, he was better than old King Kong Meaner than a drunk y'all dog I'm setting fancy free because she wants to go. She's tired of loving me. She told me so. I guess she don't know just how much she means to me But along with all my dreams I'm setting fancy free Yes, I'm setting fancy free Even though I love her still She'd be no good to me If I held her against her will Even though that girl She's the best part of my world Along with all my dreams I'm setting fancy free Oh Lord, you just don't know How it hurts to say goodbye She did her best to stay I can't say she did not try I just hope the road she takes Leads back to me So along with all my dreams I'm setting fancy free Yes, I'm setting fancy free Even though I love her still She'd be no good to me If I held her against her will Even though that girl She's the best part of my world Along with all my dreams I'm setting fancy free Yes, I'm setting fancy free Even though I love her still She'd be no good to me If I held her against her will Even though that girl She's the best part of my world Along with all my dreams I'm setting fancy free Yes, I'm set fancy free Even though I love her still She'd be no good to me If I held her against her will Even though that girl She's a man called I thought we would always We'll be right back. I thought I'd never lose He's got you Beneath this dark cloud You left me under Can't sort it out So I sit and wonder Tell myself It hurts, darling Now my empty heart Will be forever haunted He'll hold you tonight But I won't What's he got when I'm gone? The one thing I thought I'd never lose He's got you He'll hold you tonight But I won't What's He got that I know? The one thing I thought I'd never lose He's got you Oh, He's got you Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I've been around and I've seen some things. People moving faster than the speed of Saturn. Faster than the speed of bullet. People living like Superman all day and all night. And I won't say if it's wrong, or I won't say if it's right. I'm pretty fast myself. But I do have some advice to pass along right here in the woods of this summer. You better not look down, if you wanna keep on flying. Put the hammer down, keep it close to the head. You better not look back, or you might just wind up flying. You can keep it moving It's all about An old girl friend of mine showed up the other day That girl had lived in love and for love And over love and unloved all her life If the arrows from Cupid's bull that had passed through her heart had been sticking out of her body, she would look like a polka-pine. And she asked me, Phoebe, do you think I've lived my life all wrong? And I said, the only advice I have to pass along is concealed in the course of this song. Better not look back If you want to keep on flying Put the hammer down Keep it cool to be ahead Better not look back Or you might just want to be crying You can keep it moving Don't look now I was walking down the street at sunrise one morning in London, England And there was a very large Rolls-Royce limousine Pulling slowly along the street And in that Rolls-Royce was the Queen of England Looking tired, just got back from a party And the Queen leaned out and she said, aren't you B.B. King? She said, oh, B.B., sometimes it's so hard to pull things together Could you tell me what you think I ought to do? And I said, You better not look down If you wanna keep on flying Put the hammer down Keep the hammer down Hey, you better not look down Or you might just wind up crying You can keep it moving If you wanna look down You better not look down If you wanna keep on flying Put the hammer down Keep it cool Better not look back Or you might just wind up Crying You can keep it open Don't look down You better not look down If you wanna keep on crying Put the hammer down Lucy, you won't do your sister's will. Lucy, you won't do your sister's will. You ran over me But I love you still Lucy Please come back where you belong Lucy Please come back where you belong I'll be good to you baby Please don't leave me alone I woke up this morning, Lucy was not in sight I asked my friends about her, but all the lips was tight Lucy, please come back while you belong I think to you, baby, please don't leave me alone I woke up this morning, Lucy was not in sight I asked my friends about her, but all they lived was taught Lucy, please come back while you belong I'll be good to you, baby Please don't leave me alone Lucy Baby, set it for my heart Lucy Baby, set it for my heart I'll play for you, baby And Dave is such a wonderful star Thank you. The salvation on the back plate And the children drop lemonade And the morning lasted all day All day And through an open window came Like Sinatra in a younger day Pushing the town away Oh came down to listen. He said in winter 1963, it felt like the world would freeze. With John F. Kennedy and the Beatles. Yeah, yeah. I am my, my, my little man. I am my, my, my, hey. I'm laughing at all the time. I am my, my, my, my. I am my, my, my little man. I am my, my, my, hey. All the love shot down You may turn to rain Watch the water roll down the drain As we fall down to the station Knowing ever would have made goodbye You can see it written in his eyes As the train rolled out of sight Bye-bye Hey, oh my, oh my, oh my Hey, oh my, oh my, oh my Hey, oh my, oh my Oh, I've been a long time, my, my, my, my Where you goin' on? Hey, my, my, my, my Where you goin' on? Hey, my, my, my, my Hey, my, my, my Hey, my, my, my Hey, my, my, my Where you goin' on? Hey, my, my, my Where you goin' on? Hey, my, my, my Hey, Mama, hey, yeah Oh, hey, Mama, Mama, make it easy on your side Hey, Mama, Mama, this is tonight Hey, Mama, Mama, hey, yeah Hey, Mama, make it easy on your side Hey, Mama, Mama, make it easy on your side I failed my, my, my, my tonight. I failed my, my, my, my. I failed my, my, my. I wait not no more time to get back. I failed my, my, my, my tonight. I failed my, my, my. The first time I laid my eyes on you I knew we'd spend this life side by side I still feel the same Though you're so far away I swear that you'll always be mine Forever, love I promise you Someday we'll be together Forever love I won't give up No matter what I'll be waiting for you Forever love Minutes and hours and years may go by But my heart knows nothing of time So don't cry, just keep me right there in your dreams And hold on to these words of mine Forever love, I promise you Someday we'll be together Forever love, I won't give up No matter what, I'll be waiting for you. Forever love is the road to our destiny. Nothing can change what it's meant to be. Forever I won't give up No matter what I'll be waiting for you Forever alone I'll be waiting for you Forever alone Forever alive I dreamed I was dying in Texas I closed my eyes and I sighed Like a black and white movie I saw my days playing out before my eyes I was crippled by a life of injustice. I was bent from walking into the wind. I pled guilty on the day of judgment. God just shook my hand and grinned. And he said, come on in. You did the best that you could do. There's a little bit of pride in every wrong. There's a little bit of me in you Sister, I know there's a will You've been slaving in the sun all day The burden of life in your belly Sorrow in your heart off play Your husband was a man of passion And passion stole your husband away And your son gave their life for your freedom But you feel like a prisoner anyway Sister, come on in You did the best that you could do There's a little bit of pride Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. guitar solo Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. There we go. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will call this meeting for February 13, 2014 to order and I'd like to welcome everyone here. First on the agenda, we do not have any minutes for approval, so I'll move to any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon. My name is Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. If you turn to page 3 in your agenda, under Development Plans, Item B, DP 2013-29, Headley-Niven Advanced Properties, Lots 1, 2, and 3, we request a one-month postponement. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of DP 2013-29 for one month. Second. Okay, thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of DP 2013-29 for one month. That would be the March 13, 2014 meeting. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up. Motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes, sir. Staff? Mr. Chairman, if we may direct the Commission's attention to page 4 of your agenda, item D, DP 2014-4, Landsberg Plaza Shopping Center, we have received a written request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. That would be March 13th as well. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Move postponement DP 2014-4 to March 13. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement for 30 days, March 14th. DP 2014-4, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, I'll... Bill Salé, are you going to walk us through the consent agenda? You're in a different seat right now. You threw me. You caught me, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I'm very glad to take the commission and the audience through the consent agenda at this time. There are four items on the revised consent agenda that was distributed to the commission just before the meeting. We also placed copies at the back of the room. The first item on your revised consent agenda appears on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda. This is a final subdivision plan that has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee at their meeting one week ago today. This is plan 2014-3F, a final plat for Blue Sky Industrial Park, lot 5. This is an amended plat for property at 351 United Court. There is one final subdivision plan recommended for reapproval by the staff. It also was reviewed by your subdivision committee. I understand last week. This is on page 2, item C of your meeting agenda, plan 2012-132F, Park Hills Unit 1C, Lot 1, amended. This is for property at 3100 Pimlico Parkway. There are also two development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. that are on the consent agenda. The first appears on page 4, item E, of your meeting agenda, DP 2014-5, an amended final development plan for Miracon Incorporated, Phase 1 through 4, an amended plan, also known as the Oaks Condominiums. This involves property with an address of 395 Redding Road. The final item on your consent agenda appears on page 5 of your meeting agenda, item F, DP 2014-6, an amended final development plan for the Blackford property, Phase 4. This property has an address of 6600 Manowar Boulevard and 3210 Blackford Parkway. Mr. Chairman, this last item requires the posting of a sign advertising your meeting today. The staff has received an affidavit from the applicant's engineering firm, and this affidavit does show the picture of the sign. It does appear being posted in order prior to your meeting today. In addition, this plan is in the expansion area, and the commission needs to make a finding to approve this plan. We have distributed copies of a compliance report to you on a white piece of paper. This actually was for the last development plan for this property. However, this amendment only involves a change of one dwelling unit into some parking and open space. We believe these findings are also germane to your approval of this plan today. Mr. Chairman, unless a member of the audience, an applicant, or a member of the Planning Commission desires further discussion of any of these four items, they are eligible for consideration at this time for approval of your consent agenda. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to have one of these items removed from the consent agenda to be heard? Any commission member? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the consent agenda. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the consent agenda as read. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. First on our agenda is on page one. It's a final subdivision plan, plan 2014-2F, Willow Green, Unit 4, Lot 1. you do have a waiver that's before you on a white sheet as well as a yellow sheet for the findings of the use of an access easement. Thank you. a card to us that I will pass around, and she also brought some goodies that's on the back table in case we're here for any extended period of time. So with that, Cheryl. Okay. I will start. As you said, it's on page one. It's Plan 2014-2F, Willow Glen, Unit 1, Lot 4, amended. There we go. Sorry about that. We're located at 276 Old Mount Tabor Road. This is facing north. We have Takes Creek Road and Alumni Drive, which is at the end of Old Mount Tabor Road. This property here, we're coming into subdivided into two lots. It's at the end of Walker's Way, which is a private road. The property is zoned R3, so they can subdivide this into two lots to create two single-family homes. The plan has been reviewed with the standard conditions, one through six, just typical sign-off conditions. Condition number seven talks about the division of water quality is approval of the capacity assurance. And as you spoke earlier, we do have a waiver and a findings for the access easement. And Tom's going to present that information for you. Is there any other questions? Any questions for Ms. Gall? Seeing none. No, thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, as Cheryl stated, there is a waiver request associated with this record plat. This is an amended record plat. You may recall that just recently you saw this single lot here replatted, and there was discussion about this access drive to Mount Tabor Road, which, of course, will be closed. Access to this property is Walker's Way, which is the private street here. This was developed in 1993, as was the rest of the subdivision in this location. There are sort of T or Y cul-de-sacs in this area that serve these other streets. And in this situation, because this was a remnant lot with the old house here, they never completed it. And now here we are in 2014. They wish to amend this plat, create two lots, build two single-family homes. They will utilize Walker's Way as their sole access. This is the easement area. It's 30 by 70 feet. It will function in lieu of a full cul-de-sac. Normally, under the land subdivision regulations, they would have to build a full cul-de-sac. And obviously, that would greatly impact the utilization of these single-family lots. The applicant has stated that they believe that this will function. Staff reviewed this with several other divisions, solid waste and fire. They agreed, along with traffic, that as long as there was room for service vehicles to turn around safely, that's always been the concern in areas like this where things haven't quite been completed, that this will function in lieu of a full cul-de-sac. We are making a recommendation that this area of the access easement and not the driveways, and there's an exhibit attached to your waiver report that shows the proposal and how the driveways will come off of the access easement to serve the single-family homes. We are recommending that it be built to public street standards in this area. And, of course, that's so solid waste. Other government agencies that may have to serve, provide services here, aren't going to have to pay to repair damage to what is a private access easement. Staff is recommending approval of the waiver. We have also submitted to you a finding on the suitability of the access easement, and obviously that goes hand-in-hand with the waiver. They are going to be utilizing that access easement. It will be shared by the two lots. So we have distributed to you a finding that you can see that we are also recommending that you approve that subject to those findings, that in fact that this area will meet the intent of your land subdivision regulations. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions? Oh, excuse me. Bill is just reminding me. We do have two. On your report, you'll see that there are two requirements that we have on our approval. One being, as I stated before, the need to denote on the plat that it will be built to public standards. Those are listed in your report with an asphalt surface, asphalt base, and granular base of one inch, three inches, and nine inches. This is directly from your land subdivision regulation requirements for public street construction. In addition, because Walker Way is a private street, we would like for the applicant to demonstrate authorization to utilize that private street for their sole access prior to certification of the plan. Any questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. I wanted just to ask one clarification. In general, we're in agreement. it's the language, is it anticipated that the full 30 by 70 area was to be paved? I'm kind of wondering how that's written. Mr. Martin, can you address that? Yes. I'll put this exhibit up. Okay. You can see from the exhibit and the area that's shown off the end of Walker's Way with 30 by 70, and it is, in fact, staff's understanding that entire area would be paved. That was our understanding of the intent, and that's to provide ample room for vehicles to turn around, particularly our garbage trucks, sanitation, and in the hopefully unlikely event that an ambulance or a fire truck is needed on the premises. I guess I asked the question, you know, this was an exhibit of what could be done, And if we were to follow this picture exactly next to the street itself, we have landscape areas shown there. So we weren't necessarily saying it was going to be 70 by 30 every foot of that paved, but it was the flexibility to let the builders work out the termination and the screening areas within it. So that was just what I wanted to clarify. The concern that staff has is the ability to make sure that's appropriately inspected and approved and will meet the requirements. We felt that this would. To try to leave some flexibility there, we will have to then request approval to other entities, like Traffic Engineering Division of Engineering, who does infrastructure review. And we felt the simplest way would be to state this is the area they're proposing. This area shall be paved to public standards. That was our effort to try to simplify the circumstances on getting this constructed properly. So, again, any new direction we may go to give them flexibility would require coordinating that with those inspection entities that are concerned about its proper construction. Mr. Chairman, Commission members, if I could also comment, I don't think the staff has any issue with the proposed landscape areas that Mr. Cayley referenced there. I think that's very typical of that type of a street ending. I think the concern that was expressed to staff was by the ability of our solid waste folks to navigate a three-point turn on this private access easement. So if there's much diminution in that pavement width, that's going to affect those turning movements. Mr. Cayley, you got a question as far as the area or the asphalt base, et cetera, et cetera, that's to be put down? Yeah, we were fine with the depth being to a street standard for the heavyweight vehicles, and I don't think we have a problem with a proposed T-intersection. As it read, the full 30 by 70 was paved. What's shown there, is that not 30 by 70? No. No, it's just where you come in from the bottom up to those two properties, we had some green areas and some screening. so you know we meant that as just an exhibit of what would work well in the situation so that's my question if I go back you know and show I guess what's approved is every inch in 30 by 70 would have to be paved as it's written as opposed to providing an ample turnaround and that's why I need to know subject to traffic engineering approval Did you provide this drawing? My office provided it. Not that good. Someone's got to take responsibility for it. Staff would offer a possible solution in that the extent of the access easement area to be paved could be resolved to the approval of the divisions of planning, traffic, public sanitation, and fire prior to certification of the plat because we want to be sure that it's clearly denoted on the plat what the requirements are because it is our understanding the intent is to let the home builders construct this. Okay, this is not being done by a in your typical infrastructure fashion under a preliminary subdivision plan. This is going to be done by home builders and we want it clearly stated and denoted and easy to enforce what the easement will be in size and in construction. Your suggestion that on the waiver under A? The condition on the waiver would be that that area of the easement would have to be resolved to the approval of the divisions of planning, traffic engineering, fire, and sanitation. Solid waste? Solid waste. Yes, sir. Those are the real interested parties in how this will function. Okay. Mr. Cayley, would you be okay with that? Yes. Okay. As long as I, yep, I'm good. So, I don't know if I'm paraphrasing or what, but Mr. Martin, if we added 2A at the end, subject to the approval of planning traffic, solid waste, and fire, you okay with that? Everybody understand? And that is prior to certification. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? And Mr. Cayley, you're okay with it? Yes. Okay. Any questions from the Planning Commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it for discussion and or motion. And depending on the will of this planning commission today, I would be asking for a separate motion on the waiver as well as the plan or as well as the plan itself. Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chair, we'll do the waiver first. Let's do the plan first. Plan first. Platt. Okay. I'll make a recommendation of approval of Plan 2014-2F with the nine noted conditions. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with the nine stated conditions. If there's no further question, please vote when it comes up on the screen. And I'll follow that. The motion passes. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Okay, sir. I'll follow that with the recommendation of approval of the findings for the petition for waiver plan 2014-2 with the two noted conditions adding a third condition with the language pertaining to the access easement and its design. Okay. Actually, I think that could be added to the first condition. Okay. As far as subject to the approval of planning traffic solid waste and fire. I'm fine with that amendment. Do we have a second for that motion? Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the waiver for Plan 2014-2, Willow Green, Unit 4, Lot 1, amended. revising A, the recommendation of A to read, denote on final record plat that the proposed access easement area be constructed to public street standards with an asphalt surface, asphalt base, and granular base of 1-inch, 3-inch, 9-inch, subject to the approval of planning, traffic, solid waste, and fire. Do we have a second? We do have a second by Ms. Mundy. If there's no further discussion on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda is at the bottom of page 2. It's Plan 2013-128F Coventry, Belmont Farms. You do have a waiver on white sheet that is before you, and the waiver has three separate waivers to it. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this plan has been brought back to you for consideration of the waiver request. It is the final record plat for a 15-acre site located out on Georgetown Road. Here's the frontage along Georgetown Road at its intersection with Spur Road. The old Lindley School is across the street here. Here is Hundley Place in Walcott Way. This is the residential area of Coventry. And you may recall we've had discussions in committee on a zone change back in this area off of Citation and off the end of Spur Road. So that's the area we're in. You have approved this plat. It is the proposed elementary school site for the school board. They've brought it back because they've run into not an unusual problem we found with school sites, and that's the need to move forward and the need to transfer the property so the school can do what they need to do and program things in. And as you're aware, they're also exempt from our local standards. So they're requesting a waiver of substantial completion of the public improvements. In this case, it's the sanitary sewer, which is located across Huntley Place and will have to be extended into the site to serve the site. In addition to the waiver of substantial completion, there's a technical waiver associated with 6-6 of your subregs, and that is the section that requires public sanitary sewer to be present to serve a lot. And then they're also asking for a waiver of the performance bond or surety. That is a requirement under your subdivision regs any time they wish to, again, build public improvements in stages or have to wait until they're completed. We have, of course, a process that allows them to post a surety to cover that cost should they not be installed or constructed as they should be. In this case, staff is recommending approval of the waiver of substantial completion. We're recommending, of course, waiver of Article 6-6, where the sanitary sewer is required. However, we are recommending disapproval of the waiver of the surety. We believe that they should post a surety. They're creating a lot. It does require public improvements. And although it may be unlikely that the school won't be built here, Again, this relegates the urban county government to kind of a third-party observer status in this process. And we had a previous request very similar to this, you may recall, on Polo Club for the elementary school that's located out there on Polo Club on the Clark property. It was an identical request, and they wanted to waive the substantial completion and the performance surety. sewers were not an issue at that location. We recommended approval on that one of substantial completion, but again, we recommended against approval of the waiver on the posting of a surety. And we believe, once again, in this case, it's the same circumstances, and we believe a surety ought to be posted. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. any questions for mr. Martin if not thank you sir yes I'm sorry mr. Wilson mr. Martin I'm just curious about this performance bonds and assurance I mean the Fayette County Schools is not compliant I mean we don't have we don't have to do a whole lot for this what if they don't get that I mean what do that what will that do for them if they don't get the if we vote that down, the performance bonds and assurance, what happens then? The applicant has posted an escrow amount that is to be used for him to develop the site as part of his contractual obligation to the school board. Okay. But it is staff's belief that they should post a surety, as they've done in other school sites. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? If not, applicant, anything? Oh, Mr. Cayley. Here I am again. We're in agreement. How about that? In addition to posting the bond. Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone else wish to speak on this? any questions from planning commission uh mr martin or staff this is a reapproval correct no sir it has just been brought back to you for approval for the waiver for the waivers okay so what i would like today would be three separate motions for one for each waiver which is listed in the heading, Article 471, 479, and Article 6. 6. And you've got staff recommendations on the back of that page. Yes, sir, Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I'm going to move approval of Plan 2013-128F. With the waiver, you want each? Yes, sir. I'd like separate motions for the waiver today. Okay. Your first one is Well I made a motion for approval of the plan Okay you want Move approval of article 4-7 D1 Certification of substantial completion Second Motion has been made and seconded for approval Of the waiver 4-7-D1 With staff recommendations Please vote when it comes up On the screen Mr. Chairman, move approval of Article 4-7D, 9, performance surety and disapproval of that. Your motion is what? Well, I'm just trying to read it here. Disapproval of Article 4-7D9 performance surety. With staff recommendations. With the staff recommendations. Thank you. The motion has been made for disapproval of 4-7D9 as staff recommended with their recommendations. Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Okay, let's see if I can get through this last one. Mr. Chairman, move approval of Article 6-6 Sanitary Sewer. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion to make a second for approval of articles, waiver for Article 6-6. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. That motion passes as well. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We move on to page 3 under development plans, DP 2013-90, Springdale Subdivision Unit 2. You do have revised staff recommendations on the salmon-colored sheet that's before you, as well as findings for use of access easement that's on a green sheet before you. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, at the top of page 3 on your agenda, under development plans, this is item A, DP 2013-90, Springdale Subdivision, Unit 2, Block A, Lots 1, 2, and 3. What you have before you is a development plan for this property and preliminary subdivision plan. This is property that is located out on Mitchell Drive in this location in the curve as Mitchell Drive curves up into Rosemont Garden in this location. CVS is located across the street. So that's the Old Springs Motel site. And again, as you curve down through here and head on back through Mitchell Avenue towards Clay's Mill in this direction. The plan that you see before you is situated on a site that's just a little over a half acre. They are proposing 10 townhouses in two groupings in this location. You can see they're proposing parking with one-way circulation here. There are 20 spaces proposed. The units themselves are 22 by 35. They are 28 feet in height. They're proposed to be 28 feet in height. This is an underground detention basin that they're proposing. There is an existing basin in this area on the property. It's small, and the drainage tends to flow in this direction across the spring site and towards a creek and that sort of thing on the far side of that site. you can see there are large easements in the back of the property in this location. This plan has been the subject of a lot of discussions and a lot of meetings between the staff and the applicant. And as you all are aware, the neighborhood as well has expressed their concerns about this plan. staff has distributed for you on an orange sheet a revised recommendation. The first version of this plan did not have a dumpster, and in the course of discussions and work on the plan, the need to provide a dumpster location was made apparent through the staff and the applicants work with solid waste. The result of that was a plan that showed a double enclosure in this area, and that was unacceptable to staff. And you can see on the back of your orange sheet that we had recommended disapprove of the plan based on that. Subsequently, again, we have met with the applicant. they brought in the revision that you see before you today they also submitted this rendering and this exhibit to try to demonstrate their attempt to address our concerns staff's concerns and you can see they're emphasizing a lot of landscaping in this area specifically again and you can see landscaping with a wall They are proposing to have a single dumpster. It's only four feet tall. They'll have a wall around it, a berm and a wall in this location. This will be a brick or rock or stone. It will be a decorative wall, again, with heavy landscaping, and that's what they are proposing to you today. Staff, as you are well aware, want to encourage infill and redevelopment and the proper utilization of property, and we're not adverse necessarily to working 10 units onto this property. However, the challenges on this site and the need to get an appropriate design and the need to address this dumpster location has resulted in what a revised recommendation that the staff has before you today. and that very simply is to reduce the number of proposed townhouses from 10 to 9 units. In addition, to relocate the dumpster elsewhere on the site so that it's less prominent, obviously, in its relationship to the street. And those are the concerns that the staff have. That's our recommendation. It is something that we have discussed with the applicant on several occasions. It, again, is we believe will grant them the ability to deal better and more efficiently and more creatively with the constraints and the challenges on this site. But I might add, again, these are three-bedroom units, and that's it for me, unless you have any questions. Questions? Yes. Mr. Kirk? Has there been any work with staff of a re—I mean, with the applicant for redesign, which— We've had several discussions with the applicant on redesign. including moving the units up to a frontage on the street and putting the parking, the dumpster, and those things more in the rear. But we've had that discussion. From day one, staff was concerned about the number of units because that creates problems with the site and trying to make everything work. But we do believe there could be a solution with 10 units, but it is very apparent to staff that a redesign using 9 units should be. What are the size of these units and configuration? What configuration? What are the size? I mean, four-bedroom, two-bedroom? There are three bedrooms. There are three bedrooms, and they're 22 by 35 feet and 28 feet tall, so two stories. Um, and, and we did, we kicked it around with them and, and, uh, we looked at them all out in here to see if we could front them there. We looked at banks in different locations and that was very difficult. That was a very awkward design, uh, in trying to accommodate parking, detention, uh, and those issues as well as open space. But, um, there has been a lot of work and, and I don't, uh, I wouldn't want, uh, the planning commission to think for that they haven't tried as well and i think uh that's why you see before you what they believe is the appropriate solution uh for developing the site and why you have before you today our recommendation that we believe that nine units will allow much more creative design on this site. Any other questions? Tom, one of the, on number 11, it got changed from discuss required information for private open space to denote required. How tight is that? They actually do have a table on the plan, and it demonstrates the proposed square footage. What we haven't rendered for you on this one, but there's a lotting plan. There's lots on this plan, and the ordinance requires a minimum amount of open space on each lot. So you can look at this, and we believe they can meet it. based, but we are actually comfortable with that at this point. Any other questions? Yeah. Yes, Mr. Berkley. I'm sorry. Go ahead. If you said this, I apologize because I missed it. Originally, when we saw the plan, it was 11 lots, right? And now it's 10? Is that correct? There's always been 10 units, but there's an HOA lot. So technically that's 11, but there's 10 units. And then what size are the units? I haven't looked at them. You said there's a table that shows the square footage of the units. Well, this is the open space, square footage and the lot size. And the lots vary from a little over 2,000 or well over 2,000 square feet to 3,000 to 16,000. The lotting pattern varies because of the difficulty with the site. I assume that. But they do meet the requirements of the ordinance. it's r4 by the way but they're allowed to meet the r1t standards under r4 which is what they're proposing to do miss plumley did you have a question yes my question um there are no sidewalks and on mitchell avenue with with uh the limited parking of this site it will encourage all street parking or on street parking? It may, certainly. People do park on the street. Yes, ma'am. Anything else? I might add a point of clarification. In the parking area, this is an access easement that will serve this property, and there is a finding that's been distributed to you for that access easement. And the original plan, this was much more narrow. In an attempt to meet fire and solid waste concerns, this access easement has gotten larger so that is one thing i neglected to to tell you mr martin um from here i cannot tell on mitchell avenue are there any sidewalks on mitchell avenue sidewalks do exist on mitchell avenue okay all right thank you anything else from the commission at this point if not applicant Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. Steve Perry has had to unfortunately leave. He was here, but he was sick as a dog, and the coughing, I had a feeling, would interrupt us more than his presence would, so we thought that it would be best that he headed home. But Tony Barrett is here with me as well with Barrett Partners, who was the engineer and designer of this. and I will thank Tom for him in complimenting his creativity in this design. We certainly, quite frankly, were very proud of this design. This is the old Springs Inn lot. It was the efficiency kind of portion of the Springs Inn that was behind it. There were 13 units on this that were rented out for a longer period of time than just a typical one night at a hotel. They had their own little kitchenette units, and they basically were there for about 40 years. They were demolished and cleared at the same time as the spring inn was, and then Mr. Perry purchased the lot and has basically been working towards today. As Tom did indicate, it is an R4 lot, and it allows for not only townhomes, but townhomes with the density that we are proposing here. I want to kind of get this out of the way fairly early on, not just for the Planning Commission's benefit, but also for the audience. We're not here for a zone change hearing. We are here for a review of a final development plan. As you all know, that is a very different standard of review. Article 21 basically governs when a development plan is required to be approved or when can be denied or modified. and this plan is before you today and it's in complete compliance with the zoning ordinance. We are not here asking for any types of variances. It is in complete compliance with the subdivision regulations. We're not asking for any waivers here. In applicants' opinion, this plan does not create any flood, drainage, traffic, health, safety, or any type of nuisance problems, which are the listed reasons why a plan can be turned down or modified. In our position, it is our position, excuse me, that this plan, as submitted, is appropriate for approval, and we feel that it must be approved under Article 21. As, if this will turn it on. There we go. As you can tell, this is a very unusual lot. This lot basically curves around and basically comes down to a hard angle right here. Oftentimes, I know that I've stood here before you all and said that this is kind of the last piece of the puzzle for the development. I'm more going to say this is the last piece of the pie because that's exactly how this little parcel is shaped. It almost is a perfect little circle right here, and this is what is causing some of the kind of creative design that we've come forward with. I will take issue with the staff's report saying that this many revisions to a plan shows that it's not necessarily appropriate for this density. I call this good planning. This was working with the staff, working with the neighborhood in order to come back with a plan that is in complete compliance with every rule that we are required to meet. This is not technically in the infill and redevelopment area, but this is very much a vacant and underutilized property. This is what the comprehensive plan goes on at great end about where we need to take efficient use of this property. Again, this is R4, and we are meeting the density requirements. We've met with the staff many times. We've met with the neighborhood at least twice. We've listened to their concerns, and we have come back with, again, a plan that's in complete compliance. Tom mentioned that one of the main kind of possibilities that we were looking at was moving the townhomes up to the front of the property, almost kind of even with the sidewalk. This is kind of what the proposed townhomes typically will look like. When you have contiguous townhomes together, they have to be in a straight line. Unfortunately, we can't bend them around a curve because then you're going to have basically oddly shaped townhomes that are smaller in the back than in the front. And on this particular lot, it would require either the loss of a unit, but also it would require an increased cost of development because we would have to specially design each and every unit as opposed to what we have here, which are the exact same floor plans. And let's see. I guess now would be another appropriate time to say this. This is not about maximizing profitability. I mentioned that we're going to the possibility of losing a townhome or incurring extra developmental cost. If this was about maximizing profitability, Mr. Perry would have an apartment complex before you today. Under R4, we could do it. We can do it in the site constraints. We probably would have to ask for a variance or two, but we could absolutely do an apartment complex on this site. We feel that the townhomes are much more in keeping with this neighborhood, and we believe the neighbors agree with that. We know that staff agrees with that. Um, if the idea of moving the buildings forward was not appealing to the neighborhood, they wouldn't have recommended it. And they certainly would not have thought that, uh, these apartments or these townhomes were not in keeping with the neighborhood if they wanted them more kind of front and center to the, to the street. To give you some context, I want to basically show what these townhomes are looking at from this property. As you all know, you recently approved the CVS on the corner right at Harrodsburg and Lane Allen. It already has been built, and a plan has been submitted for the rest of the Springs Inn property that would have a McDonald's in this location. I believe it's a Zaxby's right here, and it's a Taco Bell right here. There's also a retail location that I do not believe has been named yet. But this is what these townhomes are going to be looking at. To give you an idea, here is the street view. This is how close we are to a commercial development. This gives us, I think, a very good idea of what kind of we are talking about as far as what is surrounding this property. You move these units closer up, we are not going to be able to offer the tremendous amount of landscaping that we are right here. This property right now with our landscaping plant is not only just buffering the neighborhood from the townhomes, it's also buffering the townhomes from what is going to be developed here. The further we move this up, the less landscaping we can do. And quite frankly, the way that these properties are, the commercial is not required to have as heavy of landscaping as we are providing. And we're looking at the back of fast food joints. That is what these property is going to be looking at. One of the main reasons I point this out is the reason why townhomes are more essentially marketable than single-family residents. If we added two or three single-family residents here, there's going to be no landscaping right there. It's going to be directly into the commercial project, and we just do not feel that that would be fair to the market and fair to this property. It would lead probably to another underutilization of this vacant lot. Now to the wonderful topic of the dumpster. This is the last remaining issue that staff has. I think that tells a lot about the creative design that has gone into this process. It is essentially the only issue. They have recommended that we move this, that the dumpster basically be located closer to the single-family residential. How many times has staff sat before you all and asked a dumpster to be located closer to a single-family residential property? I can't think of many. I know just last Planning Commission meeting, you put a condition on a plan to get the dumpster further away from single-family residential. Here we're in a situation where we believe we have optimized not only the efficiency to access this site for the dump trucks, waste management has approved this location, but it also inconveniences our neighbors in the least amount possible. As Tom had said, we are planning significant landscape on the dumpster location. There's going to be five-foot stone walls surrounding this dumpster, which is four feet. There is a three-foot garden wall that is, I mean, similar to a retaining wall that will basically go on both sides of this. And there is also a two-foot landscaping berm that will come up to meet the wall as well as significant landscaping. I'll show you this slide in order to show Section 1 and Section 2. These are two slices that basically will show what our proposal is from street level. This is the garden wall, the three-foot garden wall that we were referring to, and here is basically where the dumpster is located a little bit further back. As you can see, this is not in any way, basically, it is completely screened from the pedestrian and from the traveling public here. This is not a situation where you all are used to walking next to a dumpster that is significantly taller than the pedestrian, and you're staring basically dead into this. This is substantially landscaped. I go into this detail because there's an ordinance directly on point here. 16-4.1 of our code of ordinances not only contemplates having a dumpster in a residential zone, but lays out the very specific screening requirements that we're completely in compliance with. So our, basically, alternative is not a nuisance to our direct neighbors. It is completely screened from the pedestrians, from the traveling public, and it specifically meets the code section, which contemplates this very type of situation. To give a little bit of history of what Tom was talking about, We've tried. We looked at doing Herbie's and Rosie's. It wouldn't work. A dumpster is required for any time you have seven or more units. If we try to put 10, 12, 14 dumpsters, or not dumpsters, but kind of Herbie's out on the road on Mitchell Avenue, that would be a true burden on the neighborhood, and that would look, we think, very poor. And that's why we came back with staff with the dumpster location that basically is completely screened as opposed to having an alternative where we're having Herbie's and Rosie's out on front of Mitchell Avenue. The only other issues that we've kind of heard from is that these units themselves, they are kind of too, they take up basically too much room. We're talking lot coverage at this point. We pulled the 10 closest residents in the neighborhood. These square footage figures are from the PVA. I've listed basically whether or not they have a garage because the garage list figures are not actually included in any square footage that the PVA has. If you are looking at a 12 by 20 typical one car garage, that adds about another 240 square feet to each one of these lots. We're talking about 726 square feet on our lot. That is our building area coverage here. We feel that this is very similar in keeping with our neighbors. We've also heard that these units will be too highly priced for the neighborhood. We have gotten market studies. We've done comparisons to other townhouse complexes that are similar to ours. We're looking at basically selling these for about $139,000 or $142,000 is about our kind of range that we're looking at based on the configuration. So this is very much, again, in keeping with the neighborhood. There are houses within 100 feet that are $150,000. There are some that are $130,000, $147,000, $133,000. This is in keeping with the neighborhood. And that pretty much is what we needed to say in case in chief. Again, we feel that we have a proposal that is in complete compliance with the zoning ordinance. It's in complete compliance with the subdivision regulation. It's in keeping with the neighborhood. And we would appreciate basically approval of the dumpster in this very location. If we move the dumpster, it's going to require us to lose a unit, and it's going to require us to basically increase the development cost, which will put a burden on the developer. Welcome any questions. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Yes. Yes, just for my own information regarding the dumpster, is there a rosy facility in there too, or is it just? There is a way to do recycling and trash, basically, in this unit, yes. We won't be throwing all recyclables away, I promise. Mr. Dirk? Yes, you stated that an apartment complex would obviously produce a much higher yield, but obviously you're anticipating a yield which allows you to derive estimated prices of these units. If you reduced it by one, what impact would that have on the price? On the price per unit, I'm not exactly sure. I know that that is a direct cost of $38,000 to the developer by dropping a unit. That is straight off. I cannot say what impact that would have on the market price that we would look to sell these. I'm just not familiar with that. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Berkeley. I guess I would like to know, you know, even if you lose a unit, where are you going to move the dumpster that would not be any closer to the residences and that kind of thing? Quite frankly, we don't think we can. We think that even with losing the unit, that dumpster is going to be back in the residential. again because of these straight lines that is required of these complexes in order to find a place that will meet the turning radius of the dump trucks this dumpster is going to have to be basically a lot closer to the residential if staff is objecting to basically it being along mitchell avenue at all then we're putting in the backyard of single-family residents we don't think that we don't think that's appropriate at all if that answers your question Any other questions? Let me say this, Mr. Nicholson. It's always a pleasure to see you here. Mr. Simpson apologizes. Mr. Simpson apologizes. I think he may be apologizing for some health reasons. He is indeed. We always enjoy him being here. You may have taken a little bit less time than he did. I'm not for sure. I had to go there. I'm sorry. Had to go there. Any other questions for Mr. Simpson or Mr. Barrett at this point? If not, I know we've got others that want to speak. Anyone in favor of this development plan? Please come forward. If not, we'll move to those that are opposed. Let me see a show of hands of those that would like to speak. Okay. Very good. Come forward. Give us your name, please. Yes. And address. Good afternoon. My name is T. Bergman. I'm secretary of the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization. I'm also a 28-year resident of the 600 block of Mitchell Avenue. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today and address the concerns of the neighborhood regarding this development plan. We are a very young organization. We are only one year old, but we've had to deal with a whole lot, and here we have this today. We've learned a lot in this past year, and as an organization, we take very seriously our responsibility to preserve and enhance what we value as a neighborhood. We respect Mr. Perry's right to build multiple family housing on this site. However, we cannot support his development plan for reasons that I will outline in my comments. We are one of the older neighborhoods built in the suburbs. I guess that was the suburbs at that time when we were built. We are approximately 60- to 70-year-old homes, as you well know. Detached garages, yard in the back, nice front yard in the front. Most need a little bit of repair, but they have good bones and good character. The same can be said for some of the residents, me included. We're doing our best to keep our bones strong and our character intact, but today we need your help. In addition to being older, we are also a fragile neighborhood in a state of transition. It will not take much to diminish the character and stability of our neighborhood. The action that you take today will have long-term effect on our neighborhood. We truly are concerned that we will become a neighborhood in decline if this plan is approved. We feel that we will become a neighborhood where the property value will slowly decline and the majority of the homes that are now owner-occupied will become rentals. We are concerned that the neighborhood where homeowners no longer will feel an incentive to improve their property. We feel that we will risk a neighborhood where people move in, stay a short time, disappear, and have contributed nothing to the sustainability of that neighborhood. as was mentioned earlier the springs property has caused or has resulted in what we're dealing with today the the sale of that property our vulnerability began at that point as a result of that development we are now bookended between the commercial property on the springs property and a proposed health clinic on Southland Drive. What was once a relatively quiet street has now become a cut-through street, or soon to be an access street to all the restaurants that are going in on the springs. And there's more to come. As you know, the Rafferty property is not going to go as planned, and so they are proposing two fast food places there. Well, that's only going to increase the traffic on our street. And there is still one lot that is not developed, not sold. We don't know what's going to be there, but we do know that it is going to enter, the traffic off that lot is going to enter directly across from this proposed plan on to Mitchell Avenue 600 block. Since last fall, the neighborhood has met twice with Mr. Barrett and Mr. Perry to discuss the plan, exchange ideas, and to see if there was some common ground and room for compromise. Mr. Simpson attended the second meeting. Unfortunately, there was no compromise. There were no alternate proposals. At each meeting, the neighborhood organization clearly stated what we were opposed to in the plan, and we suggested alternatives. Our major objections are three. The density. There are too many units for the size of the lot. In order to make the profit margin that he needed, Mr. Perry stated that he needed to build that many units on the lot. The number of units determines the location of the buildings, as has been discussed and pointed out. All of the parking, as you can see, is in the front of the building. This creates the look of second-rate housing. Sometime in November or December, the waste disposal dumpsters came into the picture. They are, as you know, approximately 10 feet from the street. Once again, the look of second-rate housing. The 30-foot setback for each of the units is not being met. Our requests included asking that the buildings be located at the front of the lot with the parking behind. we said if that is not possible then reduce the number of units so that there is more green space and that the 30-foot setback required on the street could be incorporated the location of the dumpsters needs to be away from the front of the property earlier i mentioned that we were concerned that we will become a neighborhood in decline and that we feel this plan will contribute to that decline. It is our belief that these units will become rental units at some point in time. I understand he intends to sell them, and a price quote was just given. We contend that they at some point will become rental, and we say that for this reason. They do not invite ownership by residents when you think about the fact that there are three very busy streets there, Harrodsburg Road, Lane Allen, and Clay's Mill. Someone with young children would not want to move here. The view, as mentioned from the front of the buildings, is a parking lot, the back of the CVS and restaurants, and one unknown business. There is minimal green space for residents and pets. Now, it looks like a lot of green on that, but that's not a lot of green space. When you consider what people, 10 families, sharing that amount of green space looks like a whole lot of parking lot to me. The private space in the back of each unit. If anybody wanted to sit in their back, I don't know if you want to call that a yard, a little square back there, they're looking, they're between a 28-foot wall and a 6-foot fence, and they've got about 10 feet there. No sunshine. That's where they would have their private escape. The possibilities of these becoming rentals for UK or Sullivan students is very upsetting to the neighborhood. If these become rental property, our property will be devalued. we currently have five houses on the street that are rental on this 600 block i should say five already and you add the possibility of 10 more and that will change the character and complexion of this block it does not promote aesthetic appeal it is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood and it lowers the value of the existing homes with all of the rental units recently built on and off Broadway. How can there be a need for more? The current traffic volume will soon be increased by the traffic from the two or three, and I think it's probably going to be three restaurants on Harrodsburg Road. This was discussed when those two plans were before you last year, and they had agreed to help us with putting in two or three speed humps. They contributed. That all has to be renegotiated. We know there's going to be an issue of more increased traffic and there currently is a speed issue already. Not all of the traffic is definitely going to be on Harrodsburg Road. If you put 10 townhouses, if they're added to this street, rental or owner owned, possibility of 20 more cars, give or take, will be on Mitchell Avenue. Camouflaging the dumpsters is a start. However, it does not change the fact that the dumpsters are approximately 10 feet from a sidewalk, a public sidewalk for the neighborhood. If there is one design feature that speaks volumes about the quality and care that has gone into developing this plan, it's placing a dumpster next to a public sidewalk like this. I also want to make a comment about the landscaping. I am a big advocate of landscaping. Proper landscaping, it's critical as far as I'm concerned in any new development. However, I want to relay an incident to you. In the CVS situation, which is, what, three years old, something like that, three trees died. Three trees that were put there and agreed to by CVS as a screen, a vegetative screen, from the neighborhood to the back of that property. Three of those trees died. It took me at least five emails, phone calls, to even locate somebody that would talk to me about getting those trees replaced. One tree has been replaced out of three. So this is not going to be my home. This is going to be owned by possibly ten families or rented by ten families. No one there is going to take the responsibility for keeping those trees and shrubs alive. We all know what happens in our street, in our town, in our city, when no one cares for the vegetation. We see it every day. The newly adopted comprehensive plan makes it very clear that existing neighborhoods are a vital part of our community with unique characteristics and should not be endangered or marginalized via development. It further states that the comprehensive plan promotes neighborhood prosperity and success. It provides the tools to ensure that all neighborhoods, old and new, thriving and in decline, are given full access to paths to success. It is the neighborhood's position that the design, the density, and the physical layout of this development project is not compatible with or complementary to the existing single-family homes in the neighborhood. This plan will not improve the livability of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention, and most importantly, thank you for your watchful eye on the development of our city. Thank you, Miss T. Yes, ma'am. Hello. My name is Helen Morrison. Thank you very much for hearing me speak. I'm here also representing our neighborhood. We have several neighbors back there. Most of us work, so it's hard to get here during the middle of the day. I am a lot of what I'm going to say is going to reinforce what what T has said but we we just wanted to make sure we were clear while we respect Mr. Perry's right to build on the Springdale lots and to make a profit we want to clearly voice our opinion that the current plan is not thoughtfully designed and it will not enhance our neighborhood and we see several problems with the design, which Tia has already addressed, but mostly we don't see any true effort at creative and thoughtful problem solving and design. It does appear that the main focus of the plan is simply to squeeze as many units as possible on the lot. Leaving out the dumpster to begin with is further evidence that there was no thoughtful planning at the onset of the project. Putting a wall up to hide the dumpster just to get it through this process is certainly not an example of good design. Good design is based on considering the whole picture at the onset, including neighborhood character. The best way to address this part of the design process is to talk, is by talking to neighbors and considering their concerns and desires, which was not done in this case. This is particularly important since this is a 60 year old neighborhood characteristic of a post-war suburb. Most of these homes are owner occupied and some have had the same occupant for 60 years um we're that's fewer and fewer but we treasure those neighbors um others are second and third owners of their home i'm second owner myself actually um these owners are myself myself included deserve consideration as part of the design process and not after the fact as it has been done here one argument we have heard for the current plan is that it is the only way to make money from the project. Maybe not the only, but the way. Mr. Perry has a right to pursue his chosen profession in real estate and to try to make a profit. But Lexington does not owe Mr. Perry a profit at the expense of good design. I am confident that good design and sound profits are not mutually exclusive, and if they are, we are all in real trouble. We might as well just quit building for a while and Let's sort that problem out first. I'd also like to note here that Mr. Perry has also already acquired the property. According to the PVA, he bought it at $137,000, which is quite a good price, over half an acre in that area of Lexington. I'm certain that will allow Mr. Perry to come up with a more thoughtful design and still sell his units at a profit. The new comprehensive plan asks, how can all of Lexington's neighborhoods be great and successful? I can't answer that question in full, but I can say that this honorable commission, which serves at least in part as the guardian of good design, is a big part of that picture. And we need you to enforce the highest standard here and in every small-scale development in Lexington. If you add up all the small-scale developments in Lexington in a five-year period, I'm certain that they have a bigger impact on the quality of life in our city than the Rupp Arena Project and the Centerpoint Project combined. The development is a small part of our growing Lexington up and not out, which we all believe is important. And while no single Lexington development will ruin Lexington's neighborhoods, a pattern of allowing poorly designed projects to be built in order to encourage redevelopment and infill will damage our city and much more quickly than you think. We respectfully ask that you reject this proposal and require a new, more thoughtful design be submitted. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Morrison. Any questions from the commission for either one of the two ladies? Yes. Yes, Ms. Mundy. You're fine. I just would like to ask, why do you love living in your neighborhood? Why do you love it? Well, it's hard to really explain that entirely. Every now and then, my husband and I start looking around town for another place, and we just say we're living in the best place we can live right here. it's the walkability. We do know all our neighbors. I mean, I can't name everyone in every house, but I can walk down Mitchell Avenue and I'd say I know something about 90% of the residents on that street. And it's near, it's near everything you want to get to in Lexington. And I like, my house in particular, you know, I don't want to point out any particular neighborhoods, but things that were built after a certain time don't have this solidity unless they're very, very expensive and custom built. My house, you can go sit in the basement and you can touch the two by tens and make sure they're not wobbling. And you know you have a solid house. Plus, these are modest homes that we can afford, but they have these large lots so we can garden and run around and play and have dogs. I mean, personally, I think it's a beautiful neighborhood And it's almost the ideal in the fact that the businesses and the residents are there. But then right now we're having a lot of tension between the quality of life of residents and development. Thank you. And I'm not against the development. Thank you. Hold on a second. Let me just verify anyone else in the audience wish to speak. No. if not yes come come forward your name ma'am my name is Patricia Dillon and I live on the 600 block of Mitchell for the last 17 years and I can say I just want to answer your question also because I care very much, sorry, I get emotional about it because I care so much for the neighborhood. It has mature trees. That's the reason why I moved there, actually. I used to live over in Gardenside, which also has a lot of trees, but when I was able to move onto Mitchell Avenue, it was lined completely with tall oak trees. It was just beautiful. It's still, the neighborhood itself, is very densely planted with mature trees. This is something I value very much because it just gives a beauty to my backyard. And the front yard is a place where I can be out working and gardening and see my neighbors and talk to them because they're also out in their front yards. My house is made of brick. It's a Cape Cod. It's a sturdy house. In the midst of ice storms and all the things that the weather can bring, I feel safe in my house because I know it was well built. In fact, when I had some work done on it, they told me that they could not afford to build a house like mine nowadays with the protections that are in it as far as copper lining around the windows, window frames. and a block, metal blocking, I forget what it's called, but it protects it from termite being able to move up into the house through the crawl space. So I could not have, well, I have looked in other neighborhoods. Especially with this kind of thing happening, I was wondering if I should move to someplace less under siege. And I can't find another place in Lexington where I could afford the house that I have now or that has the community feeling and the ability to walk to the farmer's market, which I do every Sunday in the summertime. I can walk to UK where I work. I can walk out to the library if I want to really have a hike, but it is within walking distance. Also, things on Broadway are walkable. So this neighborhood is a valuable resource because it has affordable houses. it has community, it has walkability, it has bike lanes on Clay's Mill. All of these things are what I read in the paper is that Lexington is trying to develop. Well, we already have them, and we're trying to hang on to this quality of life, but we really feel under siege from developers who just want to make a buck at our expense. So please, please help us. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Okay, at this point, we'll go to the rebuttal stage and start with Mr. Nicholson on any rebuttal from what you heard. Thank you. A majority of the comments you just heard dealt with the commercial developments that have been occurring. Specifically, they mentioned the health care clinic and the commercial that I basically showed earlier with the fast food restaurants. This is not our project. This is not what we're here to discuss today. With regards to this complex here, we are not taking away people's walkability. We're not taking away people's sense of community. We are not increasing traffic substantially. This is about our townhouses. This is not about the fast food development. I thought it was very interesting that Ms. Bergman mentioned that since based on all these busy streets, there's no incentive to own these units. Well, she's against rental units, but she also says there's no incentive to own these units. So are we supposed to sit on this property in memoriam and basically let it remain vacant? Or can we build actually townhomes that will be basically sold to the public that are not being rented out by us? They are for sale. Or we could build an apartment complex on there. I said it before. If we're trying to maximize profit here, if this is about a developer making a buck, we'll put an apartment complex on there because that's the way we would do that. there obviously is not too much of an issue with the townhomes themselves, or else they would not be trying to get them to come forward to the streetscape. If they are appropriate to be closer to the sidewalk, then they have to be appropriate for this location itself. We feel that parking in front of them does not give the appearance of second-rate housing. I take great offense to that, and that's why we propose the type of landscaping we have proposed. There's an HOA on this property. There isn't someone where you have to call a national chain to get a tree replaced. We have an HOA. We have incentive to keep these trees there in order to landscape us from the very commercial developments that they have the true problem with, as opposed to this property here. That pretty much is it. I will point out, as Ms. Bergman said, four of our closest units, the closest houses to us, are for rent right now. It's part of the ability to be property owners. You're allowed to live there. You're allowed to own it. You're allowed to rent it. We can't enforce that on them. I don't believe that they should be able to enforce any, basically, prevention from us to actually rent a townhome. That is really all I have to say. I'll take any questions. Thank you. We may get questions in a minute. Mr. Nicholson, Ms. T, Ms. Bergman, I'm sorry. Would you like any comments as far as his rebuttal? I'm very inexperienced at this, but let's see if we can have a try at this. The reason we bring up the commercial development is because that has a direct impact on the traffic on our street. This complex also has a direct impact on the traffic on our street. That's why they're tied together. You're adding a number of cars to a very small street. I don't know what an HOA is or whatever he referred to. Like I said, I'm not sure what he means. I will speak to the fact that our objection is the design, the layout of the property. We understand the way this property is zoned, that he can put his apartment building there, he can put his townhouses there. That is not it. What we're trying to convey to you and to the developer is the layout. if you put the developments the proper are the buildings closer to the front and I'll use the example of what we see on Broadway where they are building by that what is it 2021 there they're building those new those are very close to the street but they're well designed they are put there so that they make a statement about the type of building that it is. The way these are placed, when you put them in the back, you put, you emphasize a parking lot. That's exactly what you're emphasizing. You don't provide space for people to be outside. If somebody owns one of these, they own the box, and that's about it. Where are they going to interact? Where are they going to be a part of a community? They're not bringing anything to the sustainability of the rest of the street. They're there, they live there, and then they're gone. That's pretty, that's what we're, what the point we're trying to get across to you. There are too many units on this lot. Reduce the units, reconfigure them, and I think we can deal with it. Thank you. Staff? Any rebuttal? No, sir. I just wanted to point a clarification to be sure. I mentioned the access easement on this property earlier, the need for a finding. That is the green sheet in your handouts if you need to refer to it. Staff has provided you with findings on the access easement. Mr. Martin, let me ask you this one question while you're there. a statement was made in regards to the 30-foot building line. Yes, sir. Are these encroaching the 30-foot building line, or are they not? No, sir. But what you need to understand is that there is a 30-foot building line platted on the property. However, and there's a requirement that staff placed on the applicant, And it's on the plan that they're going to have to file a record plat to amend that platted line in conformance with the building line that is allowed in this zone for townhouse development. And that's this 10 feet. Now, 30 feet is somewhere back, you know, approximately in this location. So with the exception of your corner lots and these corner units, they're 30 feet back. If you're saying that one curvature of the line is at 10 feet, your answer, would that still apply if the streetscape changed where these things were pushed towards the street, lying more with the street? Would that still apply? They could push them up to the 10-foot line. Okay. The setback. That's what they could do. Mr. Nicholson, you've got one more statement? Can I clarify briefly about the 30-foot setback? That is from the old hotel. That was from that plat, and it was where the hotel was located. This is in requirement with any 10-foot setback requirements that there are. So I would simply say that. Thank you. I think we've got that now. Questions from the Planning Commission? Yes, ma'am, Ms. Plumley. I'm sorry. You've been there for a while. Thank you. I actually have a question for Mr. Nicholson about the HOA. I'm assuming that there will be a fee-oriented situation, and that in turn should help pay for trees, should they replace them? For Ms. Bergman's knowledge, the HOA is the Homeowners Association. Every owner of this unit would be required to pay into a fee in order to maintain all landscaping, any type of other issues that would arise that would result in fixing up the, if something happened with the dumpster, any landscaping, any pavement, any issues with the access easement, we would have to then pay for that, and that would be managed internally. Thank you. Thanks. Mr. Nicholson, let me follow up with that. If these are rental units by Mr. Perry, he's responsible for the HOA fees. He is indeed. The way that the homeowners association documents the deeds are, if you are the owner, you have to pay into it. Thank you. Other questions? Ms. Mundy. How will these be deeded? Will they be deeded with land, or will they be deeded wall-to-wall? The lots are configured where to the sides it would be wall-to-wall, but the lots themselves come out. They do go here. There is required under our zoning ordinance, basically privacy lots in the back where you would have to go. These are deeded by lots. And then this homeowners association is a lot to itself as well. Other questions? Mr. Drake, yes, sir. Yes, I have a question for staff. If this development plan is in compliance with statute and regulation, as Mr. Nicholson has stated, upon what basis could we refuse it? Well, staff is recommending that you approve it subject to a change in the design, which is to relocate the dumpster and delete a unit. Staff believes that under Article 21 you do have some leeway when it comes to design on development plans. If the applicant didn't agree with that, what would his recourse be? Can he go to court? I believe they could. That's always a recourse in our system. Other questions? Yes, sir. I guess to that point about the redesign, I've not seen anything else that's been recommended. And I don't know if this is, you know, if that's what we need to be doing anyway. But I guess how are we to understand, you know, eliminating a unit is going to solve this problem. Because I don't understand where you would move the dumpster. That's where I'm at. I'm a loss here. Mr. Martin, with staff recommendations, let me ask you this. You've got two requests, one relocating the dumpster and two reducing the number of units. Reducing the number of units, would they have to bring another plan back to us? At this point, I believe if they did so, it would be up to staff, because if you approved it, to review it. If we felt that, well, again, it would depend on what we saw, obviously. we felt like we needed to bring it back. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission? Nope. If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion after the fact. Questions? Thoughts? Statements? Yes, sir. I'm ready to make a motion. I'd like to hear comments. If there are any comments, first. Okay. If there are. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I want the neighbors to know that we are sensitive to their thoughts and their concerns. And I think this commission wrestles each time it comes forth about infill and redevelopment that it's it's hard to make these decisions. But we want to make them within the confines of the ordinances and also be sensitive to neighbors. And thank you for being here. Any others? Yes, ma'am. The reason for my question is it's very apparent to me that you do care about your neighborhood. I feel that there's an opportunity here for you to grow your neighborhood. I feel there's an opportunity for you to have maybe some young families, some young thoughts, some young energy in your neighborhood as well. I know you live in very well-built homes. It's a very well-established area. But there's an opportunity here for, you know, one of the things you said you love about it is basically from what I got was the conveniences, the convenience of walking, the convenience of being out. That's an opportunity here for 10 more families to enjoy what you enjoy. So that's kind of where I was coming from. The fact that you love your neighborhood, but here's an opportunity to let someone else love that area as well. It's a good neighborhood. I have a good friend who lives there, and I know you all enjoy your camaraderie, and you've gotten to know each other better, I think, even through some adversity possibly. But, you know, the way I'm looking at it is I see it as an opportunity to grow your neighborhood and to create a better situation even for yourself. Any other comments? If not, let me share mine. We talk about infill and redevelopment all the time. Mr. Nicholson said this is outside the defined infill and redevelopment area, but the Planning Commission often makes a statement that the whole urban service boundary should be in the infill and redevelopment area. There are opportunities. I'm a proponent of that. And what I heard today, you know, the applicants proposing 10 units, streetscape, there's benefits one way or the other, whether you put it on the street or not. You know, to me, that's almost 50-50 maybe. You know, I could see it being a little bit better for everyone to have it on the street. But I don't think that's the biggest issue. The rest was density, traffic, and dumpster. There's going to be traffic. That's going to be a fact throughout town, throughout the city these days. The density, to me, is the issue. The density, the dumpster coincide with each other as far as I'm concerned. You know, typically I would say 10 units are good. I think this is a little constrained for 10 units, so that's my belief. So at this point, you know, this piece of property is going to be developed, simply put. And we've just got to do what is best for Lexington as a whole. And, you know, right now, you know, my vote is going to be with staff's recommendations. So with that, any other comments? I know I've got the cohort here just dying for a motion. If there's no other comments, I can entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I agree with a lot of the comments that have been said here. But also, Mr. Nicholson put it pretty clear that we've approved it's suitable for these townhouses. It's zoned that way. I think there was a big, white, ugly apartment building or some kind of building there before the part of the Springs. Wasn't that? Well, it covered a whole lot, I think. motion and then the rest of it was parking i'm making this motion come on get through it okay i don't see any problem with the dumpster i know mr tony barrett is an excellent uh landscape architect and he's uh looked like he'd camouflaged it pretty well with the berms and all that sort of thing so with that said i'm going to make a motion for approval and i want to of the revised staff conditions, but I want to eliminate number 12 and number 13. I think that says I'm putting 10 units on it. Motion's been made for approval with the first 10, first 11, I'm sorry, first 11 requirements. It's listed on the revised staff recommendations. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded for approval with the revised recommendations. The first ten. Any question on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you for coming. We're going to take a five-minute recess and then resume. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Next on the agenda is on page 4 at DP 2014-1 Locust Hill Shopping Center. we do have a revision which is on pink sheet and i think mr sali is going to walk us through this thank you mr chairman yes i do plan to do that again members of the commission good afternoon this item is on page four of your agenda it is an amended final development plan for parcel one of the locust hill shopping center this shopping center is known to many people at the corner of Manowar Boulevard and Richmond Road. It is also served by North Locust Hill Drive, which forms almost the third side of the property, although some of the shopping center is also located on the north and east side of that roadway as well. The lot that's before you on this amendment is the largest lot in the center, here bounded by an access drive parallel to Richmond Road, and that is connected with a right-in, right-out access at this point on Richmond Road. And it is also bound by Locust Hill and by adjoining property to the north, not part of the development plan. There's an existing Kroger store on the site and other retail stores that kind of flank either side of that store. This amendment is in for two reasons, primarily because a new building is proposed at this location toward the front of the shopping center and to show a fuel center on this particular outlet. That fuel center has been constructed. It's been there a number of years, and this plan basically reflects the construction canopy and a small kiosk at this location. Those of you on the subdivision committee may recall at your January meeting, this plan was discussed, and this is a revised version of the plan that you reviewed a little over a month ago. At that time, this building was proposed more in this location on the property. And that led to a single discussion item about the removal of trees and landscaping in this particular area of the property. You also may recall at that time there was some discussion about a proposed drive-through associated with one of the two retail spaces in the building. Each of these are just a little less than 2,000 square feet. In preparing for your hearing last month, the staff also noticed a discrepancy in the site statistics about the square footage. And to be honest, that discrepancy was really not resolved until this morning when the staff met with the applicant's engineer. The square footage of the kiosk did not match the numerical representation on the plan, which also did not match the site statistics. The kiosk is about 220 square feet, but the number shown on the plan is much closer to 6,000 square feet. And that is a carryover from past plans wherein a retail building was proposed in this location. And with some amendments, some of that square footage was allocated to other parts of the shopping center. That discrepancy was discovered this morning amongst talks with the staff and the petitioner's engineer. Also, the staff had undercounted the existing parking on this plan. So the applicant's engineer was also able to show us that the true parking count on the property is correct. This was important to the staff because we are dealing with a plan that proposes to remove some parking and add additional square footage. So the staff had an initial concern that the parking might not be met with the ordinance requirements. As of our meeting this morning, we are confident that there is a surplus of about 50 parking spaces, even for the new building proposed, and that this plan is in compliance with the parking requirements. I can also report to you that this redesign, moving the building from this location here and shifting the drive-through for the one-end unit, is acceptable to the Division of Traffic Engineering staff. And that was probably, for those of you on the subdivision committee, the last major issue that you may recall with this development plan. The staff has prepared for you on the pink sheet a revised recommendation for this development plan. It is, as your subdivision committee recommended, for approval. However, you will note the last two conditions have been modified. We would ask that the tree canopy information be documented in the site statistics or clarified, especially since the trees are being retained near the existing detention basin. And then finally, with condition number 10, that is a replacement condition, has no bearing to what is shown on your agenda. Since the vehicular circulation is now acceptable, we would just ask that the square footage that was shown on the out lot be relocated to another area of the property where it would be conceivable for it to be developed. Say this area is the most likely candidate for that. That way they do not lose any approved square footage. It could still be built in the future at another location. and that this lot then reflect the kiosk that's actually there. At this point, I'll be glad to answer any questions from the commission about our recommendation or about these two revised conditions on this plan. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Applicant? In agreement? My name is Bob Cornett with the Roberts Group. Yeah, we've kind of beat this dog to death. We found mistakes that were made on development plan amendment number 19 approved in about 2005. So we've been fixing stuff that old. Of course, the B6P has changed from 25% lot coverage when the shopping center was created to 35%. So technically, we could be here asking you for another 60,000 square feet of buildable area. So we're happy with what we have. We already have the changes that Bill has requested on moving the buildable area from the fuel center lot to other areas on the property to retain the buildable area. So we're in agreement with these. Thank you, Mr. Cornett. Any questions for Mr. Cornett? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, if there's no questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Drake? Mr. Chairman, if there is no further discussion, I'll move approval of DP 2014-1 with the revised staff recommendations as specified on our handout. Thank you. We do have a motion for approval and a second by Mr. Wilson with the revised staff recommendations. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for your work. Next would be on page 5, DP 2012-105. Park Hill Shopping Center lot one amended. While we're letting them get ready, we've got a memo for the release and call of bonds that's before us. I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move release and call of bonds as noted on our handout. Thank you. And we do have a second. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Sorry. I think I caught a couple of people off guard. There you go. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is one remaining plan on your agenda today. It appears in the middle of page 5 of your meeting agenda. It's item G, DP 2012-105, Park Hill Shopping Center, Lot 1 amended. This involves property at 3100 Pimlico Parkway. The staff, during the break, passed out two items to the commission. One is a packet of staff exhibits that I will walk through in what I planned about a 10-minute presentation on this re-approval request. And the second are the communications that the staff has received about this plan since the commission last looked at it about 14 months ago. In addition, I have a few items to show you on the overhead that I hope will also help. I'd like to begin by orienting you to the property that's before you on the overhead. This is a view of the Park Hill Shopping Center. Here we have Manowar Boulevard here at the intersection of Pimlico Parkway, which is a signalized intersection at this location. This occupies the southeast corner of that intersection, and the plan amendment is primarily to replace a bank that is no longer in operation at the corner with a McDonald's restaurant. The other uses in the center are an Arby's restaurant at this location, a convenience store here, and numerous retail stores, offices, and shops in the remainder of the center. The shopping center has two access points at this location on Pimlico Parkway, opposite of Custer Drive, and a secondary access at this location that serves primarily a pizza outlet, the convenience store, the rear of the center, and traffic that may be moving between this location or this location between some of the buildings in the center. I have a little closer view of the corner lot, which is really the driver of this development plan, and the adjacent restaurant. This is the bank building that's here, the drive-through lanes that used to be there had parking at this location. And I would ask you to focus on this large green area here, including the two landscape islands and this parking. The relationship of the properties to the bank and those two that are joining it are a most unusual circumstance with this development plan that will take a couple of minutes of my presentation time. First thing we'd like to reacquaint the commission with, I believe you discussed this in late 2012 in your consideration of the plaque that you re-approved earlier at this meeting and also when you reviewed this agenda. There has been on the property since it was initially created in the early 1980s a reciprocal parking and access note, and we have highlighted that for you here. Of course, if necessary, we can show you the entire plat of the property, but that is also a significant issue with the development plan that you have today. this is the plan the commission approved in december of 2012 it shows the mcdonald's restaurant this location accessing through the arby's parking lot at two locations and into the body of the shopping center at this one location. A dumpster was proposed at this portion of the property, and a double drive-through facility was proposed to the rear of the restaurant. The plat that you re-approved earlier today changed the building line along the front of the property. It is now shown at a 25-foot setback rather than the 50-foot setback that the original plat had for the property. No access to Pimlico or Man of War is proposed to this plan, and none has been in existence for some time. The staff wanted to update you on all of the information we are aware of since you last approved this plan in December of 2012. And that is the reason we have provided you on the tan sheets the correspondence that we have received for this. The first is an email we received yesterday from Mr. Nathan Billings, who cannot be here today. He represents some of the adjoining property owner or lessor, and they are objecting to this plan. You'll see the notation is for the plat, but when you see the title and the wording in the email, it was clear to the staff that what was being referenced was the development plan that is before you today for reapproval. Your approval of that plan expired in December of last year, and so the staff received a request, as we'll get to later in the correspondence, for reapproval of a plan that you previously approved. In April of last year, on the second page of this handout, we received a request to notify Mr. Billings of any future meetings involving this property, and the staff did take care of that late yesterday. We do apologize for the delay in that. We had earlier received in February of last year a letter from Mr. Talbot representing the shopping center owner who had great concerns with this approved plan and especially the access to the property that is now before you once again. That prompted a reply from the staff in March of last year in which we informed the shopping center that there are portions of the center that have not been developed according to the 1980s approved development plan. and those include the areas adjacent to the bank lot that is proposed to be redeveloped. They also include a few of the circulation areas, and primarily in this location of the property there are a few other slight deviations. But in terms of the plan that you're being asked to reapprove today, this is the most significant condition in your consideration of this plan, is that what is on the ground does not match the plan that the Planning Commission approved some three decades ago for this location. That has proven to be a design constraint for the restaurant and their representatives. They have a condition on the ground that they have to adhere to to be able to access that property, and they have an approved plan that involves property that they do not control. This was discussed in December of 2012 at your committee meeting. The staff had some discussion items about that, and they were resolved with a condition that appears on your agenda today as number 10 on the middle of page 5. That was a condition to resolve owner's signatures for all lots affected. The reason being, the plan you approved in December of 2012 did show a revision in the development plan immediately adjacent to their property. And of course, since they do not control that property, that then requires the shopping center to also be a signature to the development plan. The staff's understanding is a lot of the correspondence that we've shared with you since has been because those two property owners have not been able to agree on a single amendment to this plan that would resolve the condition that the existing as-built does not match the approved development plan in a fashion that would allow the restaurant to redevelop on their property. So rather than having one constraint, the owner of this corner lot has really had two constraints, what's on the ground and what's approved but not built on the adjoining property. In the staff exhibits that begin with the original submission in November of 2012, the staff identified this situation early on. Perhaps we could put a copy of this on the overhead. this was the most clearly evident to the staff a little over a year ago in looking at the relationship of the dumpster proposal on the property right here for those in the audience right here. The approved plan has a landscape island at this location, yet on the ground that is asphalt. And so the designers of the restaurant realized that they could service a dumpster at that location. However, the approved plan shows a landscape island at that location. So that gives you a good picture of the different problems and how they merge together in considering this corner property. As a result, if you'll flip to the next page, a revision was given, I believe, to the subdivision committee that showed that island being removed at this location on the property so that the dumpster location could be serviced through the existing asphalt that is there. This is what prompted the condition to require the owner's signatures for all lots affected. If we could move to the next drawing. On the third page of this handout, titled Plan Certification Version January of 2014, the staff received a mylar for certification of this plan based on your 2012 approval. And it relocated the dumpsters to this area of the property, here, and retained the approved landscaping islands that the Planning Commission had approved in the 1980s. So this is a version of the site plan that the Commission has not seen until today that tries to meet both conditions of what is existing on the ground adjacent to this property and what has historically been approved adjacent to this property. Okay. As you can tell with the date of January 2014, your approval of this plan had expired, And so on the very next page, we have included a copy of the letter asking for re-approval of this plan, pardon me, of the plan you approved in December of 2012. The recommendation from the staff that you see on the agenda was for postponement of this request. as we did not feel it appropriate to reapprove this plan when this is the plan that they desire. We wanted to bring both plans to you, explain what has transpired in the last year, and afford you an opportunity to review what is really desired on the subject property. We received this in Mylar form in January. When we received this, it was taken from us, and we did not get it back, in essence, until yesterday. So this is the version that the staff understands the petitioner would like to develop on the prior. In looking over the correspondence, The very first page, Mr. Billings has asked that condition number 10 remain if you reapprove this plan. In essence, it appears from this communication they are asking that the shopping center owner be required to be a signator to this plan. The plan revision to the left, since it does not purport to change the approved development plan, ordinarily would not require the signature of that owner. The plan you approved in December of 2012 would have required the signature of that property owner since it was changing their approved development plan for the property. the staff in reviewing the new plan finds that it can be signed without the signature of the shopping center owner but again given this request that looks to be the one issue that probably will be discussed by most of the parties here on this plan that is our anticipation this afternoon. I must tell you this is a most unusual development plan. I have presented numerous development plans to the commission over the years. I can't think of one any that's quite like this and given that I would be very glad to try and answer any questions you may have about our review of this plan or about your 2012 action or about what is being requested of you today. Questions for Mr. Salley? Yes, sir. Just a point of clarification. The 2014 plan, we don't need the 10th condition. The 2012 plan that we approved, it's in our purview to approve this, again, re-approve it? Yes, sir. without signatures and i guess it's it's it's an it's the issue of accessing the dumpster is that i don't i'm not sure that accessing the dumpster is an issue with the current version of the plan the dumpster is entirely on the bank lot can be served uh the vehicles back up and exit the site probably one of probably this is the only way they could do that not sure they would back all the way out and go in front of the arby's most likely they would back this direction and exit through a corner of the arby's property into the main center to me looks like the most logical point The issue with the 2012 plan is it shows a change about 40 or 50 feet into the shopping center owner's property. If this plan is what is reapproved, that will still require the signature of the shopping center owner to accomplish this plan. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? Yes, the bank traffic went through Arby's also. It did. Thank you. Primarily most of the drive-thru, it was exiting. Let's put the picture back up. I think that shows it best. the bank drive through most customers came into the main shopping center entrance around this portion of the property and entered the drive through at this location once they received their service they were aimed at this direction and my guess is most of the traffic exited back to the main Mr. Salli, question. Two questions, maybe. One, the plan on the left, which I presume is what they're asking for now. Yes. You mentioned the 50-foot originally went back into the shopping center lot. It doesn't now? Yes. What they're proposing does or doesn't? the zoning ordinance requires a 50-foot setback from the zone line. The zone line is in the center of the street. The original plat, Barb, let's put the original plat on. Thank you. No, the one folded up highlighted here. Yeah. The outpods. This is the original plat for all, and it has a 50-foot building line here. The plat the commission re-approved earlier today took this building line to 25 feet, which is more than 50 feet from the center line or the zone line there. Okay. And then the second question, with the recent development, with this plan submitted so recently, has the shopping center or neighbors had a chance to see this? I'm not sure if the shopping center or the neighboring owners or neighboring restaurant has seen this plan. No, sir, I'm not. Okay. I do believe that the divisions in the government that are sign-offs to this plan, I believe they have reviewed this plan. Okay. In your interpretation, does this latest plan resolve the issues that required the sign-offs earlier? That's my understanding, yes, sir, from the applicant. They have revised this plan in order to meet the eight sign-off conditions you see on there. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from Planning Commission at this point? If not, yes, Chairman, I'm sorry. There is one item that I failed to mention. I thought Ms. Plumlee might ask me about this. One more thing to put on the overhead for you. The biggest change, perhaps, in our local regulations since December of 2012 and the current time is the capacity assurance program. And so the staff has reviewed whether or not this is in one of the troubled banks that we have for sewer capacity. And we understand that this particular lot is not in one of those banks. you would anticipate that a fast food restaurant would generate more sewage than a branch bank. This bank has a capacity, according to this, of almost 10,000 gallons per day, and you see a capacity withdrawn number there of 1440. That may actually be for this proposal. It's very possible that that is what that withdrawal is. Just wanted to point out that there's no need for an additional condition about capacity assurance on this plan, whichever one you consider. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Thanks, Bill. I'm Chris Westover. I'm representing the property owner of the particular lot. Also here today is the engineer for the project, Roderick Saylor, and two representatives from McDonald's. We have spent almost 18 months now trying to get this property in a state where it is entirely developable, entirely within the boundary of this particular lot. We had numerous constraints because the original development plan that was approved for the entire shopping center shows improvements at locations where they're not there, and there are other issues with that development plan. So when we finally brought the plan in last year in December and had this conversation, we realized a couple of things. One is that if we wanted to do this development as we originally intended, the shopping center owner would have to sign our development plan. And we have been consistently unable to do that. The other issue that we had that was very difficult was there were improvements installed by the shopping center owner that we had to take into consideration that if the shopping center later changed its site to accommodate the plan the way it was originally done, we would have to accommodate that as well. So after about 18 months, I can say that McDonald's has been able to achieve a very difficult task, and that is to have a development plan that affects only our property. Every part of the improvements that are proposed for our development are done on our own lot, and we are not required to obtain any signatures from any other property owners. And the development as proposed will not call into question any of the existing design improvements on the shopping center property. So it's been a long day. I will just stop here by saying that we respectfully request approval of the latest submission and to remove condition number 10 because there is no need to have any other property owner sign off on this property except the owner of the lot who is in full agreement with this latest submission. and might be useful and instructive to hear the questions, comments, and concerns that are raised by the others in the audience, and we can respond to that. Finally, I want to emphasize what Bill mentioned, and that is there is a reciprocal parking and access easement on this property. It's a general easement. It applies throughout all the shopping center to all the lots, And necessarily because we have no road frontage, no access to a public street, we cannot operate unless we have reciprocal parking and access through the shopping center, including the lot that the Arby's is on there. That is the only way we can survive and function. And we feel like our development meets 100% of all of our zoning ordinance, subdivision plan regulations, and every other requirement. And we request approval without number 10. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Westover. Any questions for Ms. Westover? No? Thank you. Others that would like to speak? My name is Reza Timaji. I'm the lease here at Arby's Restaurant next door to this property. Can you put that plan that shows the both property? If you could, since we're a little static on the microphone, could you repeat your name? Reza Timaji. Okay, thank you, Mr. Timaji. No, the one with the second one, with the plat, the latest plat that they proposed. Yeah. That's not it either. Well, leave that. I just want that to be up there. As Bill mentioned, this is one of the most unusual situations I have faced. I've been in this business 40 years, built 40 restaurants, and I've never seen something like this. when the bank parking lot, the bank was there, there was no issue with traffic. Because of the kind of the traffic that the bank had was very sparse on a different time of the day. And so the amount of traffic that came in at a shopping center was not issuing any problem. Another issue I need to bring up, I have R&B's next to McDonald's in most of my locations. And the most successful Arby's I have are the one next to McDonald's, believe it or not. By design, we have always tried to be as close to them because we don't compete menu-wise with them, yet we benefit from the traffic they generate in the neighborhoods. So I just want that to be told so it's not that because I don't like competition. That's why I'm arguing this point. If you take a look at these two plots, McDonald and us, McDonald generates between 1,200 and 1,400 cars going through their drive-thru as well as their parking lot a day. That's national average. Lexington average is a little bit higher. Those numbers, they can provide it for you or their website. Majority of that traffic will be going through between 6 and 8.30 in the morning during breakfast rush, between 11 and 1.30 in the afternoon, lunch rush, and 5 to 7 at night. That also happened to be the time that the whole neighborhood, either going to work or coming home. And as he stands, the Man-o-War and Pimico Parkway is a nightmare, as he stands right now trying to get in and out of during the rush hours. And if there is a truck trying to come in from Man-o-War to the Pimico Parkway, all the cars are trying to turn either way, they have to back out because the truck cannot turn to Pemico for Man O' War. Now imagine adding about four stack cars between where Man O' War is and the entrance of Pemico Parkway, trying to get into the parking lot with a million on the center of it. I don't know whether you are familiar with the exact plan, the way it stands or not. When McDonald customers come in, they either going to have to come in through our parking lot, which is going to abruptly block my drive-through customers from getting out, or they have to come from back access. But every single exit car, in another word, every car that is served by McDonald has to go through Arby's parking lot in order to get out. There is no any other exit. And in order for them to do that, because there is no place to stack cars from the shopping center to Pemico, you immediately going to have to take the cars and take them to Pemico, meaning all the cars going to be stacked from half of my parking spaces that exist right now. So if you can imagine, if you're going to McDonald's on a regular basis right now, in In the morning when you go for breakfast, you have a line of cars that are stacking all the way back behind the building. And on the exit side, they are coming out at a speed of about every 30 seconds. That's the timeline that McDonald's get their car out. Imagine trying to get every 30-second car to the Pimlico Parkway. How many cars are going to be stacked? That means my drive-through is going to be shut out by McDonald traffic, as well as the people that are trying to get out of my parking lot are not going to, which also that's going to hinder their situation. What I had proposed many times that has not been heard, first of all, we were never communicated throughout this from the first time the Planning Commission heard this. And that's what I said. if you all put an impartial traffic engineer who has studied this whole situation, I will be totally satisfied with that because I know what the answer is going to be. Because I have faced this situation before in other locations, and when an impartial traffic engineer come in and say he's going to create a quagmire of problems here for the shopping center as well as for my business, then you will understand I'm not against McDonald's be my, at next door, as long as they are not going to burden me with unloading every single car in their parking lot, in my parking lot. And I understand that they give them access for us to be reciprocal as far as our parking as well as the traffic. But on this proposal, what kind of a benefit I'm getting from McDonald's parking lot? Zero. What am I giving up? everything. I am becoming the access road to McDonald's, and that absolutely is going to destroy the business I have in there, which happened to be our livelihood. And that's the area I wish you all had considered. I have spoken with Bill and his staff numerous times since we found out by accident that this was going on. And to be honest with you, of familiarity I have with McDonald Corporation. If their traffic engineer come and look at this on site, I'd be very surprised if they approve this plan because they had a similar situation on Lansdowne Shopping Center. And when their engineer came, they were the one that rejected the site. I don't know how overt they are as far as that goes, but I would propose before you all vote to okay this, Just please have an independent traffic engineering firm come in and take a look at this situation, give you their finding. And I will be fine with that because I know what the answer is going to be. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Maja? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is John Talbot. I'm here on behalf of Park Hill Shopping Center. the owner of the center there. I kind of want to just go back a couple steps if I could. With regard to the chronology of this, the owner of the shopping center was not contacted by McDonald's until after it had submitted the first plan and had that approved by you all. That contact then came in the context of a letter regarding the shopping center sign, the pylon sign, that's located on the current bank lot. Then there was an exchange of correspondence about that and the approved development plan with different counsel than Ms. Westover. Ms. Westover wasn't involved with it at that point. It was the law firm of Densmore & Scholl and some attorneys there. And we had meetings with Mr. Salee and his staff. And, you know, in terms of the shopping center, our idea is we understand that something is going to go there. You know, something is going to take the place of the bank lot. And so we start with what's there now by way of configuration. And I want to show a couple differences that I see in the plan that weren't quite highlighted. So if I could, if I could go back to that aerial photograph of the existing center, and if you all look up the 2014 plan, and if you can kind of zoom in on the existing bank entrance in the rear, the lot is configured so that the entrance is over on the right closest to Man of War Boulevard you approach the drive-thru and then you're aligned to go out and across the Arby's and there is an existing exit across the front of the Arby's there that's the normal traffic flow but it's actually constructed so that you can leave the drive-thru and turn around and come back out toward the shopping center if you wanted to. And that drive apron out there, I think if you zoom in on it, you'll see it. And that's the big green area that I think Mr. Salley referred to earlier. Well, beside that, you'll see the large blacktop area. And you'll see that there's actually an entrance and an exit right there beside that. And that exit is what we think is the critical flaw in this plan, is that, as you just heard the Arby's talk about, McDonald's proposes to stack all of its exit traffic across the front of the existing Arby's and not provide any exit on its own property. As you can see, the bank does currently provide both an entrance and an exit. And I think that with McDonald's, where they position their dumpster, that should actually be their exit. And I think that, you know, easements are reciprocal. They kind of go both ways. They impose burdens and they impose benefits. And then there's easements across, you know, for both properties. But the use of that easement has to be reasonable. You can't unfairly burden one property with all, in this case, with all the exit traffic from another property, especially a McDonald's. Now, you know, before the Senate existed for decades with a bank there, but you can appreciate the difference between a bank and a McDonald's and the exit traffic and how it'll be a traffic nightmare. And then all of that traffic is going to be exiting out the Pimlico Parkway right across the front of the McDonald's, and it's all going to stack up right there so that they're not taking any advantage of the stacking that exists straight back from Pimlico along that drive aisle. And that's what they should be required to do, is to exit back out that way. And so what I would encourage you all to do is to approve this if they'll show an exit and an entrance and confine their traffic to their own entrance and exit. I just think that's the best way for this plan to be approved. At a minimum, I think you can continue to approve it with the condition that the shopping center owners sign off on it. Thank you. I'm just looking and studying. Thank you, Mr. Talbot. Any questions for Mr. Talbot? Yes, sir. Mr. Talbot, have you all posed that particular question to the McDonald's, and what was the answer? No, once again, they filed this request and didn't communicate with us before filing this request. So we found out about this from watching your all's agenda and then from Mr. Saleh. So we posed that in correspondence to previous counsel. I didn't realize until just this week that Ms. Westover was representing them now. So, in effect, you all have had no conversation between the two of you related to your recommendation? Correct. Ms. Westover and I have had a phone conversation. May I ask the obvious? Why don't you all go back and talk about this? We would be glad to. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Talbert. Any other questions? Ms. Westover? Response? Rebuttal? Thank you. We do have a few things to add to this. Mr. Talbot is correct that an easement has to be reasonable, but there is case law, and there's even case law in Kentucky that talks about the reasonableness of the easement must be in light of the purpose for the easement. Back in 1980-something or other, when this shopping center was approved, it was approved for B6P. And if you look at what is allowed in B6P, it includes banks, grocery stores, fast food restaurants, other restaurants, the full range of things that are permitted in B6P. When the reciprocal parking and access easement was imposed, it necessarily contemplates that the reciprocal parking and access would be for the uses contemplated within the B6P zone, which included the bank with the four drive-thrus for a long time. Had the property owner, the shopping center, I guess at the time the subdivision plat was created, if the owner wanted to put limiting language in the form of some sort of restrictive covenant, they could have done so to say that if the use changes or if certain things occur, then it would affect the easement. But none of that occurs. What we have is a general reciprocal parking and access easement. And under the law, any use that's reasonable, that's permitted in the B6P, can go on this lot. And hypothetically, let's say McDonald's just wanted to totally retrofit the bank. that for whatever purpose, it could have just moved in, done the interior renovations. We wouldn't be here in front of you because all they would have needed would have been a building permit, and they could have done exactly what they wanted to do, where they wanted to do it, regardless of this issue. But McDonald's is putting a new building there, and they are touching only on their own particular lot. There is no physical impact of any improvement anywhere on the shopping center property, including on the lot that Arby's leases from the shopping center. Our problem with delaying this and going back to the shopping center is there have been discussions back and forth for well over a year now, or the better part of a year. And for whatever reason, we strongly believe that the shopping center will not agree to anything that we are trying to do. And we have put considerable time and expense and effort into this. Had we been able to build last year, the McDonald's would be up and running. And we are very concerned about more delay for conversations that in all likelihood won't prove fruitful. I've said enough right now, but I think that there are some other folks here who want to clarify some other issues related to the easement. Thank you. Hi, John Bernard. I'm area real estate manager with McDonald's. And I kind of wanted to clarify, I'm getting over cold. John's saying that we hadn't reached out. I have an email that we sent him on May 8th of 2012, almost two years ago, going over multiple sketches. One of which is what he's bringing up now, where we would have our exit go back into the parking lot. and we received then a May 10th 2012 almost two years ago this is to confirm the Park Hills has no interest in any of your proposals so we reached out to them multiple times I got an email with the sketches and now for him to say we haven't been reaching out or we haven't started to reach out since December of last year's is not correct so I just want to clarify that and we have copies Thank you, sir. Hold on one second, Mr. Travel. Yep, let's go ahead. No. I think he was talking about sending an email to me in May of 2012. Yes, Scott. I just want to say it for you. Okay. Yeah. Here's your response. Come forward, sir. I just want to follow behind John. I'm Roderick Saylor, the local civil engineer. I work with TRW engineers. I'm hired by McDonald's for their sites. To follow behind John with the contacts that they've made with the shopping center to try to work something out and answer to John's request that McDonald's produce an exit other than across Arby's, there could be a possibility in the world that if they built I'm sorry let me change I heard the approved 1980 something development plan there were multiple exits from the property but that is currently it wasn't constructed that way it's currently parking spaces I'm referring to, which is the right here. Those are actually parking spaces today. So we couldn't, because they weren't willing to kind of work with us up front, we weren't able to produce other options that might have produced something more favorable to other parties. We were kind of locked in to meeting both what was on the ground and what was on the approved development plan. If that entrance was there, I think that opens up possibilities for readjusting our site to accommodate, but there's just not a possibility to do that and only work on our site. If that makes sense, if you follow. Okay. Hold on one second. Questions? Briefly, come forward. Okay. Come get to the microphone. First of all, I don't have objection McDonald's coming. And right now, as I look at this, as I told you all at the beginning, there was no communication going on as far as this restaurant coming here until we found out by accident. At least I wasn't informed of it, and I don't know, John never informed me that was happening. This plan they have right up here, if they reverse it, in another word, they just take exactly the same thing they have, they turn it around, 180 degree, they're going to be able to put entrance and exit on the back of the property. That's going to solve all the problems. This is not the issue we don't want McDonald's there. This is the issue, would you put a previous plan with the Arby's also and parking lot up there? The old plan that had. OK, right there. The problem you're going to have in there is the 1,400 to 1,600 cars that are going to go through. That's something you really need to think about. Yes, 1970s and 80s, we had many plan approved. I give you one point in case Arby's on Lansdowne Shopping Center. Bill knows this. We have spent about $120,000 on design and development to make that what it is today. We remodeled it last year, put a drive-thru on the back, for those of you who have seen, to satisfy the city, the neighborhood, the shopping center, and everybody else. But under the old plan, we could have pushed forward, but it wasn't going to be functional for us or anybody for that matter. What we are trying to propose here is something that is, as I said, I would love, I would put a signature on that piece of paper. I love them to be my next door neighbor. They help my business. Just make sure that is the deal. But if they provide an exit and entrance, which the shopping center, according to the conversation I've had with Mr. Talbot, will have no objection to, that's going to take the burden away from our parking lot because the line of cars in the morning at lunch and dinner time going to not make me able to serve my customers because of the fact my exit to the Pimico Parkway is only one car link. That's all it is, one car. So when you are getting out of my parking lot to get to Pimico, there is only one car you can turn around, and people trying to turn both ways on one lane driveway is impossible. And there is nothing they can do to redesign this shopping center. All I'm saying, be visionary on this. Have a traffic engineer look at this and see what is the possibilities we can make this work for everybody. As Mr. Wilson proposed, why don't we all sit down and try to find a solution rather than having to do something we all going to regret at the end of this proposal? And I think we are heading that way. If this plan develops as it is, I can assure you that you're going to see a very bad situation on Pomoko Parkway because of additional 1,400 to 600 cars in that problem. Thank you, Mr. Major. Does traffic want to weigh in on this by any chance? Anything to add? No? Okay. All right. Just hold on. We're going back and forth, back and forth, and I don't think we need to. Let me hear from commission members and see what they've got thoughts of. Yes, ma'am. Well, I'm just sitting here looking at it, and even before the Arby's gentleman spoke, it appears to me, and I'm not a traffic engineer, but it appears to me if you would flip that, put your double lane to the front toward Pimlico, You could come in that entrance nearest the parking spaces, go around that side and come back down this side and go right back out. And it would eliminate at least some of that going across the Arby's lot. Hold on just a second, Ms. Westover. We've got a few. Was that really a question? No, no. Okay. All right. Yes, it is. Okay. Set tie just for a second. Ms. Plumlee, I've been missing her all day on this granicus. You okay? All right. Mr. Cravens? Yes, this is for the lawyer, I believe, representing the shopping center. What would it take to get you off to sign off on this? To have the exit front, pretty much what Ms. Mundy suggested. Yeah, evidently those two parking places, if they could go back out there to the back and not go across the Arby's lot in the front, if they could go out where that dumpster was, and there's two parking places there, I guess, that they can't do anything with unless you agree to it. Is that right? I guess that's, I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think that's correct. If they designed it so that the entrance and the exit is entirely on their property. In other words, the shopping center has a ring road and a circulation pattern within the shopping center that avoids stacking across the Arby's. And that's what we think they ought to follow. And back to these emails that Mr. Bernard and I just kind of get these. I guess let's put these as part of the record. You can, yes, please do. I'm not sure that we need to go back that far. I think we're talking about today. And, you know, I'm not really concerned about prior discussions two years ago. But one of those emails is interesting because it shows a plan with the entrance and the exit from the McDonald's property. And our disagreement with that particular plan at the time was that they proposed putting their dumpster in the middle of our parking lot. Okay. Okay, so what would it take at this point? Just say we said you have to sign off on it. What would it take for you to agree to their plan? If they were to come out, I'm not in favor of it going across the RV's lot. I agree with the man that runs the restaurant. That would be troublesome. If they could come in the back of this lot, go back out where those two parking places are right there, would you agree to that? I can't. I have a question. I'm asking him. Thank you. I'm here as the attorney for the shopping center, but not as a shopping center, so I would have to ask him. But my understanding from some previous discussions with them is that they would not have an objection to that. Provide all other improvements, dumpster, all those things are self-contained. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, did you have a question? No? Okay. Ms. Westover, briefly, and I think we're going to move on. Thank you. we have been trying to work with the shopping center for at least the last year now, and the shopping center has been unable or unwilling to talk to us about doing any other access on this lot. I think that they are very interested in this lot. At one point, they wanted to buy this lot. But we can't afford additional delay if you require us to go back to negotiate, because how many more weeks or months is it going to take, and then are we going to be back here at the same place? The fact is that our development is entirely on our particular lot, and we can do that. And under the applicable law for easements, this is a B6P property. whether it's a bank or a fast food restaurant or whatever, and as long as we can contain it entirely on our lot. We would have preferred a year ago to work this out, but we're not there now. And there has been really too much delay already. McDonald's is ready, willing to go. They can build on their standalone lot. And we are working among two constraints. One is how this development plan has originally been approved and how the shopping center has done the improvements there that prohibit this access that we're talking about. So I feel it would be very unfair to say, well, go back and talk to the shopping center because how long will we have to talk to them before we're back here? So I respectfully request you to approve this plan. If this plan is approved and certified, if the shopping center wants to talk to us after the fact, fine. But we would like to be able to move forward. There's capacity in the sewer system. We have the money. We have the financing. We have the desire, the intention. We have the lot. We have the access easements. And we respectfully request the ability to go forward with that plan. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Wilson. First of all, I understand what you're saying about the attempts to get this activity together. I guess the concern that I have here is that it's not so much the issue of whether or not you have the legal right to do what you're doing on your property. The question is, is the impact of what you're doing on your property to the rest of the community? Excuse me. This is where I think that, and it's not necessarily, I don't think it's an issue, I don't know if it's an issue with the North Park Shopping Center or not, as much as it is an issue with your neighbor. Just for the record, I eat at Arby's as well as McDonald's, so there's no thing here. But what I'm trying to figure out, too, is I am sensitive to that issue related to the stacking of cars and the popularity that McDonald's brings to the neighborhood. But I guess the question I have is, why did we not do a traffic impact study in that area? Mr. Wilson, the reason for that is the plan in 2012 was not part of a zone change. When a traffic impact study is done, it's usually in conjunction with a zone change. That's the reason. Hold on, Ms. West, other questions? One more statement. Well, actually, I can address somewhat the traffic issue that you raised, and there's a representative from McDonald's who can tell you that the stacking was studied, was discussed, and doesn't seem to be a problem. He's here to talk to you now. Good afternoon, Planning Commission. My name is Gus Macera. I'm an area construction manager with McDonald's for 29 years. I've personally been involved in over 300 McDonald's developments, primarily dealing with layouts of the drive-through parking and drive-through aisles is my main role with McDonald's. I can tell you that the plan that we have submitted for approval for be certified for the 2014 plan with it is totally a mr. reason said wondered with McDonald's would approve this thing totally in support of this he had mentioned two concerns and mr. Wilson you you also talked about the impact upon our reason he puts out this 1,400 cars it's it's it's throughout the day and there are like he mentions it is a process of cars leaving the drive through after they're served just like 30 second time frames for this to happen it's not like a one constant role so there's times for Arby's traffic to intersperse with McDonald's if they head directly to the Pimlico curb cut but also that site plan which is not before you you can still circle our restaurant and go out to the rear of the shopping center that that that does not cut off you you have the ability any customer will take the path of least resistance and if they see an issue going straight straight to the curb cut and going around the Arby's that pathway does exist so we think we have the multiple access points. I can tell you for sure that McDonald's is very pleased with this site plan and believes it will function fine and will work appropriately with our neighbors. Thank you, sir. Mr. Wilson, question? Okay, Mr. Drake? I want to clarify what the gentleman from McDonald's just said. this plan does provide a complete circuitous route around the restaurant, and you can exit through the major part of the parking lot. The reason I ask that, I used to bank at that branch, and getting back onto Pimlico Parkway going through Arby's parking lot was a nightmare. I never did it. I always went through their drive-thru window back to the parking lot to get out, get in that traffic flow or go down and exit in front of the convenience store. When you, this plan as it's laid out, does it require at the rear for you to traverse Arby's property? Put the right plan on the board. The one that's on the board. The right exhibit. We get the correct exhibit. I think we can clearly show that. I think you had the correct exhibit. This is the proposed development plan. And how does this work? There we go. So this is our drive-thru exit, pathway in front of our restaurant. This is the pathway that Mr. Reza, the Arby's operator owner, was talking about concern. But you also believe to come this way out right through here back into the shopping center. There's a path right there. So you're able to circle our building and exit multiple ways. Would it be impractical to make that the only exit point? so you eliminate the cross traffic from arby's we would very much want to keep all our access points to give that flexibility understand again what i mentioned is it's a matter of convenience yeah i know when it's easy to go that way we'd like to have the ability to go that way if there's a congestion give them the option to to go an alternate route that that is our our business is predicated on being convenient for your customers. And that does lend to that element for us. So I want to keep the plan that we've submitted and not start doing site plan revisions here. Thank you. Thank you. I don't want to do revisions as far as the plan itself here either of any large degree. Mr. Sally, if you would please refresh my memory. The newest plan with a lot of green on the left was presented when? Originally the staff last month in January. All right, then. The reason you brought it here or recommend postponement is that it's substantially different from the other plan. Yes, sir. And you wanted us a chance to weigh in on it. Yes, sir. Okay. I don't know what's going to happen here, but we've got ten conditions. Would those ten conditions apply to that plan? The staff believes that if you consider, let's call it the 2014 version of the plan. Yes, sir. Only the first nine conditions are required. Okay. Now, obviously, Mr. Talbot and Mr. Billings would ask you to retain the 10th condition on that plan. Okay. If, in fact, you prefer to reapprove the version from 2012, the staff would advise you that that 10th condition does need to remain. Does need to remain is what you're saying. Yes, sir. Okay. You approved the 2012 version. All right. And I think in my only rebuttal comment was just to ask the commission to be clear in your motion which version you're approving. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think we're at that point. I think that Mr. Talbert. Okay. We've got a question. Mr. Talbert, did you go one more thing? You know, I just felt like I was getting a lot of last words, but I wasn't getting one more. Yes, sir. With your all's consent. So this was presented last month, and it was brought up a year ago. In between then, there's been very little request discussion from the McDonald's people. And so we would request, if nothing else, let's just have a month to talk about this and bring it up next time. The other thing I'd like to show you is on the e-mails that were in May of 2012 that Mr. Bernard referred to before, I'd like to take a look at one of those if I could show you. and I think this will answer Ms. Mundy's question about the interior circulation. This is what they proposed, and so by way of orientation, it shows an entrance and an exit at the rear of the property, and then between the exits, that's their dumpster. So they were proposing to put their dumpster entirely on the Park Hills property, but they could have a circulation pattern showing with the drive-through, just exactly as Ms. Mundy said, with it flipped around from the previous proposal. That's a lot more palatable because it will not kill the traffic on the adjoining outline. And instead it will circulate it as the shopping center is designed to be through the normal shopping center drive aisles and take advantage of the stacking going out the entrance on Pimlico Parkway. That's the appropriate way this should be developed. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Mr. Berkeley, you got a question? No. No. Ms. Westover, one remaining thought, and we're going to move on here. All right. We respectfully request you to approve the 2014 plan as submitted. Even a 30-day delay is not going to have any effect. There is access from the rear out through to the main part of the shopping center. All of the development is encompassed within our lot. I respectfully request you to approve it today without the 10th condition. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, you're pushing your button. I've just withdrawn my question. The only thing I was thinking about, I'll just lay it out here. 30 days doesn't seem to be a long time if, in fact, both parties are really going to work at doing what it's supposed to be doing. But if it's simply a delaying tactic, you know, I'm not for that. I don't think we all want to hear all that again. But if there's a reasonable compromise that could come out of this that would last for 30 days, we could postpone. But if it's not to anyone's avail and it's not going to happen to accommodate anything, then I don't see any use for it. Thank you. Really and truly, I think we've heard enough. I appreciate it, but I'm going to close this part of the hearing, open it up for discussion among the members. And then a motion. So, you know, to me, if this had not expired, you know, two months ago, three months ago, you would have been going forward with this thing other than having to sign off. You've got a revision here. Is it better? I think it's better than what we saw. Is it better than one of the previous ones where everything was flipped? I'm not for sure. But this is up to the commission, and I'll let them go forward with whatever they want to go forward with. So, thoughts? Motion? Whatever you... Mr. Chairman... Please as a commission. Just a clarification, if we do 2014, the most recent one, the request is to do 2014 without number 10. If we go back to do the 2012, then we would do the whole thing. That would be all the points that are outlined by staff. Is that correct? Yeah. The one on the right, 2012, would be 1 through 10. Okay. So. Any other questions? Yes? One more question. Is the staff's recommendation to postpone? The staff's recommendation was postponement until we received the 2014 version. Yesterday. We re-got it yesterday. We had seen it in January, but their request for re-approval was for your 2012 version. Okay. Now that you've seen the 2014, what your recommendation would be? It's approvable with the nine conditions. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Berkley. Ready for a motion? I think so. Mr. Chair, I'll make a recommendation of DP. Does the number change? No, the number does not change. DP 2012-105, the 2014 version with the nine noted conditions. Okay, we've got a motion for approval of DP 2012-105 with the nine conditions for the 2014 version. Do we have a second? It appears that this motion dies from lack of a second. Do we have another motion? Mr. Wilson. I would move that we postpone this for 30 days. In official terms, it would be continued. Okay, official term to be continued with the hope that they could resolve these issues and get these things worked out. Okay, we've got a motion for a continuance of DP 2012-105 for 30 days. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded. Any questions concerning the motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson, what are you wanting them to work out? I'm looking to work out the entry and exit. I guess my concern here is that I believe, and again, I go on record as saying I think McDonald's is absolutely wonderful, and I think Arby's is too. But I think there's something that sticks with me as it relates to the development plan vis-à-vis the impact of that development plan on other neighbors in that, and the specific neighbor is Arby's. And I keep thinking that there ought to be a way for two major entities to get together to talk about the entrances and exits and what have you, and to give it one more shot. If it doesn't work, then, you know, we'll come back and do what we need to do. But I'm hoping that they would work out this issue of the entrance and exits, because I know that Pemlico area, and that is a mess right now. And my thinking is that something needs to be done that would perhaps give some relief in that area. What I would prefer to have happen is an independent traffic study as well. But, you know. Okay, we do have a motion on the floor which has been seconded for a continuance of 30 days. I didn't look. Do we need a date on that? March 13th. Thank you. That would be March 13th. Motion was seconded, so if there's no further discussion, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen for a continuance. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Good luck. We have a work session next week. Mr. King? Mr. Chairman, you also, before the work session begins, you do have the public hearing on the last chapter of the comprehensive plan, the implementation chapter. Thank you for that reminder. We do have a public hearing coming up and then a work session afterwards. Anything else? Any commission items? Audience items? No? Motion for adjournment. Do we have a second? All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion of meetings adjourned.