# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - September 8, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 8, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4052 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4052?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-09-08 - **Last revised**: September 8, 2016 - **Length**: 26,158 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 convened on September 8, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Frank Penn presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed six agenda items during the session, taking a total of nine motions and votes throughout the meeting. Two public comments were heard during the proceedings. The commission's work resulted in a mixed set of outcomes for the various development proposals under consideration. Three agenda items were postponed for future consideration: Pleasant Ridge Subdivision Lot 129, Clay Ingels Company LLC, and Cadentown - Bernitha L. Kendrick Property Lot 1. Two items received approval from the commission: both Newtown Springs Lot 1 and the Newtown Springs (Tire Discounters) project moved forward with commission support. However, the Atlas I, LLC Zoning Map Amendment was denied by the commission. The meeting demonstrated the commission's ongoing role in reviewing and making decisions on various development and zoning matters throughout Lexington-Fayette County, with commissioners carefully considering each proposal before rendering their decisions through the formal voting process. ## Attendance The meeting on September 8, 2016 had nine members present and two absent. **Present:** • Frank Penn • Will Berkley • Mike Cravens • Mike Owens • Carolyn Richardson • Karen Mundy • Patrick Brewer • David Drake • Carolyn Plumlee **Absent:** • Joseph Smith • Bill Wilson No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included nine voting actions, with all nine members present for each vote. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the June 30, 2016, and July 14, 2016, minutes, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 9-0. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 01:00] Karen Mundy motioned to approve the August 11, 2016, minutes, seconded by Mike Owens. The motion passed unanimously 9-0. **Case PLN-MJSUB-16-00006** [timestamp: 02:00] Mike Owens motioned for indefinite postponement of Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 129, seconded by Karen Mundy. The postponement was approved unanimously 9-0. **Case PLN-MJDP-16-00005** [timestamp: 03:00] Mike Cravens motioned to postpone Clay Ingels Company, LLC to October 13, 2016, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The postponement was approved unanimously 9-0. **Case PLN-MJSUB-16-00008** [timestamp: 04:00] Karen Mundy motioned to postpone Cadentown - Bernitha L. Kendrick Property, Lot 1 to October 13, 2016, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The postponement was approved unanimously 9-0. **Case PLN-MJDP-16-00004 Waiver** [timestamp: 06:00] Mike Owens motioned to approve a waiver for Newtown Springs, Lot 1, seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion passed 8-1 by roll call vote, with Frank Penn voting against. **Case PLN-MJDP-16-00004 Development Plan** [timestamp: 07:00] Mike Owens motioned to approve the development plan for Newtown Springs, Lot 1, seconded by Will Berkley. The motion passed 8-1 by roll call vote, with Frank Penn voting against. The approval included the condition to denote reciprocal access throughout the property. **Case PLN-MJDP-16-00013** [timestamp: 08:00] Mike Owens motioned to approve the development plan for Newtown Springs (Tire Discounters), seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion passed 5-4 by roll call vote. Voting in favor: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Carolyn Richardson, and Karen Mundy. Voting against: Frank Penn, Patrick Brewer, David Drake, and Carolyn Plumlee. The approval included the condition to denote reciprocal access throughout the property. **Case MAR 2016-10** [timestamp: 09:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to disapprove the zoning map amendment for Atlas I, LLC, seconded by David Drake. The motion failed 5-4 by roll call vote, meaning the zoning amendment was effectively approved. Voting for disapproval: Frank Penn, Carolyn Richardson, Karen Mundy, Patrick Brewer, and David Drake. Voting against disapproval: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, and Carolyn Plumlee. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the board during the public comment period, both expressing concerns about a proposed rezoning and development project. **Tee Bergman** [timestamp: 10:00] spoke in opposition to the rezoning proposal, raising multiple concerns about the potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Bergman highlighted worries about increased traffic that would result from the development, as well as concerns about the loss of tree canopy in the area. Additionally, Bergman addressed the need for commercial space in the community, suggesting this was a factor in their opposition to the current rezoning proposal. **Justin Joan** [timestamp: 11:00] followed with comments focused specifically on traffic safety issues. Joan expressed concerns about increased traffic volume and safety risks on Springhurst Drive that would result from the proposed development. The speaker emphasized how the additional traffic could impact the safety of residents in the area. Both speakers' comments centered on the potential negative impacts of the proposed development, with traffic concerns being a common theme between the two presentations. The public comments reflected neighborhood opposition to the rezoning proposal based on quality of life and safety considerations. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during this meeting was the **Atlas I, LLC Zoning Map Amendment**, which generated significant community opposition. **Nature of Opposition:** The proposed zoning map amendment faced substantial pushback from community members who raised several key concerns: • **Traffic impacts** - Residents expressed worries about increased vehicular congestion that would result from the proposed development • **Tree canopy preservation** - Community members cited concerns about the potential loss of existing tree coverage in the area • **Commercial space needs** - Opposition voices argued for the necessity of maintaining or providing adequate commercial space in the development **Community Involvement:** The opposition appeared to be grassroots in nature, with multiple community members participating in the discussion and voicing their concerns about the zoning change. The level of community engagement suggested this was a locally significant issue that had mobilized neighborhood residents. **Scope of Disagreement:** The contested nature of this item centered on the fundamental question of appropriate land use for the area in question. While Atlas I, LLC sought to amend the zoning map presumably to accommodate their development plans, the community opposition indicated a preference for different land use priorities that would better address their stated concerns about traffic management, environmental preservation, and commercial accessibility. The contentious nature of this zoning amendment reflects common tensions in municipal planning processes, where developer interests and community preferences may not align, particularly regarding issues of traffic flow, environmental impact, and neighborhood character preservation. ## Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 129 [timestamp: 02:00] The Planning Commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJSUB-16-00006 regarding Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 129. Rich Murphy served as the key speaker for this item. The primary focus of the discussion centered on concerns related to sanitary sewer improvements for the subdivision. These infrastructure concerns were significant enough to warrant postponing the item rather than proceeding with consideration at this meeting. The Commission determined that the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision matter required additional time to address the sanitary sewer improvement issues before moving forward with any approvals or recommendations. No specific timeline was provided for when the item would return to the Commission for further consideration. **Outcome:** The Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 129 item was postponed due to unresolved sanitary sewer improvement concerns. ## Clay Ingels Company, LLC [timestamp: 03:00] The Planning Commission addressed agenda item PLN-MJDP-16-00005 regarding Clay Ingels Company, LLC during the September 8, 2016 meeting. Rory Kahly served as the key speaker for this discussion item. The primary focus centered on the postponement of the Clay Ingels Company development plan due to compliance issues with Adaptive Reuse Criteria. The Commission determined that the development proposal required additional work to meet the established Adaptive Reuse Criteria before it could proceed through the review process. Rather than moving forward with an incomplete application, the Commission opted to postpone consideration of the Clay Ingels Company development plan. The outcome of this agenda item was a postponement, allowing the applicant time to address the compliance requirements and resubmit materials that properly align with the Adaptive Reuse Criteria standards. ## Cadentown - Bernitha L. Kendrick Property, Lot 1 [timestamp: 04:00] The Planning Commission addressed agenda item PLN-MJSUB-16-00008 regarding the Cadentown subdivision of the Bernitha L. Kendrick Property, Lot 1. Tom Martin served as the key speaker for this discussion. The commission determined that the subdivision application required postponement due to unresolved questions concerning lot frontage requirements. The specific nature of the frontage issues was not detailed in the available materials, but these concerns were significant enough to prevent the commission from moving forward with consideration of the proposal at this meeting. The outcome of the discussion was a postponement of the Cadentown subdivision matter, allowing time for the frontage questions to be addressed before the item returns to the Planning Commission for further review. ## Newtown Springs, Lot 1 [timestamp: 06:00] The Planning Commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-16-00004 for Newtown Springs, Lot 1, which involved a waiver and development plan request. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Richard Murphy, who presented details about the proposed development and addressed questions from the commission. The primary focus of the discussion centered on reciprocal access arrangements for the property. Commission members examined how the proposed development would handle access rights and connectivity with adjacent properties, ensuring proper coordination between different lots within the Newtown Springs development. After reviewing the application materials and hearing from the presenters, the Planning Commission voted to approve the waiver and development plan for Newtown Springs, Lot 1. The approval came with specific conditions related to reciprocal access requirements, which were deemed necessary to ensure proper development coordination and access management for the property. The commission's decision reflects their determination that the proposed development plan met the necessary criteria while addressing access concerns through the imposed conditions. ## Newtown Springs (Tire Discounters) [timestamp: 08:00] The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed development plan PLN-MJDP-16-00013 for Newtown Springs (Tire Discounters). Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Richard Murphy. The commission examined the proposed development plan for the Tire Discounters location within the Newtown Springs project. The primary focus of the discussion centered on access requirements and connectivity between adjacent properties. A significant aspect of the deliberations involved reciprocal access arrangements. The commission addressed concerns about ensuring proper vehicular and pedestrian connections that would serve both the proposed Tire Discounters facility and neighboring developments within the broader Newtown Springs area. Following their review and discussion of the development details, the Planning Commission voted to approve the Newtown Springs (Tire Discounters) development plan. However, the approval came with specific conditions related to reciprocal access requirements that must be met as part of the development implementation. The conditional approval ensures that the development will maintain appropriate connectivity standards while allowing the Tire Discounters project to move forward within the established Newtown Springs framework. ## Atlas I, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 09:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item MAR 2016-10, a zoning map amendment request submitted by Atlas I, LLC. During the discussion, key speakers included Tom Martin and Tee Bergman, who presented arguments and concerns regarding the proposed zoning change. The commission engaged in deliberation about the merits of the amendment request and its potential impacts on the surrounding area. The primary concern raised during the discussion centered on the compatibility of the proposed zoning change with the existing comprehensive plan. Commission members expressed reservations about whether the amendment would align with the community's long-term planning goals and development vision as outlined in the comprehensive plan. After reviewing the proposal and considering the various factors presented, the Planning Commission ultimately voted to deny the zoning map amendment request. The disapproval was based on the determination that the proposed changes were not sufficiently compatible with the comprehensive plan's objectives and guidelines. The denial of MAR 2016-10 means that Atlas I, LLC's request to modify the zoning designation for their property was rejected, and the current zoning classification will remain in effect. This decision reflects the commission's commitment to maintaining consistency with established planning documents and ensuring that zoning changes support the community's overall development strategy. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of June 30, 2016, and July 14, 2016, minutes - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of August 11, 2016, minutes - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00006** — postponed (9-0): Indefinite postponement of Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 129 - **PLN-MJDP-16-00005** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Clay Ingels Company, LLC to October 13, 2016 - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00008** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Cadentown - Bernitha L. Kendrick Property, Lot 1 to October 13, 2016 - **PLN-MJDP-16-00004** — passed (8-1): Approval of waiver for Newtown Springs, Lot 1 - **PLN-MJDP-16-00004** — passed (8-1): Approval of development plan for Newtown Springs, Lot 1 - **PLN-MJDP-16-00013** — passed (5-4): Approval of development plan for Newtown Springs (Tire Discounters) - **MAR 2016-10** — failed (5-4): Disapproval of zoning map amendment for Atlas I, LLC --- ## Full transcript It has from the very beginning been either the most downloaded or the second most downloaded phrase. And downloaded means because with that project, anyone in the world can download a phrase, take the design for that to a tattoo artist and get a tattoo. Okay, so this is one of the benefits of the new way in which we understand the world, is that you're able to track what people are doing, and you know that people have this particular phrase, people are tattooing themselves with it all over the world. more than any other phrase. So it kind of popped up for you. Okay. And so then... And the reason why... So it popped up for us, but also we started working on this artwork a year ago in the summer of 2015, which was a summer of a lot of tensions nationally and then locally about issues of race, race and racial violence. And we felt very strongly... This is probably the time we felt most powerful that we had to make art in response to a particular social issue. which was race and race relations. And so we were trying to find a way to make an artwork that would not be about pointing fingers or telling people what to think or how to behave, except we are telling them what to think, but rather unaware of fear, unaware of hate, and we're in the opposite, which is compassion and love and justice. But the artwork was born very much in response to all of these tensions, which are historical in our society. And in response to conversations, which turn into arguments where people can't find compromise because they're polarized and they're responding out of fear that they'll lose something and then become kind of aggressive as a result. Okay, so this is meant to both symbolically and in a real way encourage people to be in dialogue, to be more open to one another, to think together about these issues. And the actual artwork, this piece of sculpture, who did it? Describe it. People can see it, but how would you characterize it? So the design is based partially on the Byzantine halo tradition, so it looks like a halo from old Byzantine paintings. But the words come from the poem, and we created the design ourselves and then sent it to a man who had done some laser-cutting work, Mark Mason. Mark and Carmen Mason have a laser-cutting business, and they cut it out of stainless steel for us. There's another one that's in Spanish currently. Make this call And hold on Which I Just let go I wanna feel you In my soul Until The sun Suns up Until the sun Has come Let's make love Oh, baby Let's make love All night long Let's make love Let me tell you about the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees and the moon and the birds. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. The End The End The End Thank you. We'll call this meeting to order. Our first item on the agenda is approval of minutes. We have three sets of minutes, June 30th, July 14th, and August 11th. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of June 30th, June 14th, minutes. Second. All in favor, let's punch you when it comes up. What about your other set? I was not there, so I cannot move approval. Okay, we need approval of the August 11th minutes. Mr. Chair, I move approval of the August 11th meeting minutes. Vote when it comes up. Second. Motion made and seconded. Vote when it comes up on the screen. Give those to Carol. All right, thank you. Any postponements and withdrawals? Any postponements and withdrawals? Please come forward and state your name. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Rich Murphy, representing Abbie Jennings Consulting. I'd like to draw your attention to the bottom of page one. PLNMJ sub 16 quad 06 Pleasant Ridge subdivision lot 129 located at 756 Wilderness Road. On behalf of the client, we'd like to request indefinite postponement. Indefinite postponement. That's correct, until that sewer line is completed and we have access. You've heard the request for indefinite postponement. The chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for indefinite postponement Plan 16 Quad 6 Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, indefinite. Is there a second? Second. Motion made and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Kaley of the EA Partners on page 3. Bottom of that page, item C, MJDP 160005, Clay Ingalls Company, request a one-month postponement to October 13th. All right, you've heard that. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Move postponement of Plan 1605 for one month, Clay Ingalls. 12 August the 13th. Is there anybody in the audience want to object to this? October 13th. October 5th. I might have forgotten what month I was in. I didn't say August. He did. October the 13th. Motion has been made and seconded. Vote when it comes on the screen. Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, staff has one item to bring to the Commission's attention. All right, sir. On page two of your agenda, item C at the bottom of the page, This is Major Subdivision Plan 16-8, Caden Town, beneath a Kendrick property, Lot 1 amended. This is property located at 784 Caden Lane. Staff has received a communication from the applicant for a one-month postponement. October the what? 13th? Yes, sir. All right, sir. Staff entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for a postponement for PLN MJ SUB 16 Quad 06, Cadentown, Bertha L. Kendrick, Property Lot 1, one-month postponement to 10-13-16. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Motion made and seconded. Vote when it comes on the screen. Thank you. Is that all, Mr. Martin? Yes, it is. Thank you, sir. We're moving on to the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are several items on your consent agenda today. I'd be glad to walk you through those as they appear on your regular meeting agenda. There are two final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda. Plan Major Subdivision 16-07, the Lett property. This is for property with an address of 811 West High Street. The other is on page 3, item D of your meeting agenda. Plan Major Subdivision 16-09, Goodloe's or Keller Subdivision, Lot 12. This is an amended final record plat for property at 140 Indiana Avenue. Also, there are two final development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee on your consent agenda. First is page 3, item A, plan Major DP 16-02, Beaumont Farm Unit 3B, Lot 1. This property has an address of 3101 Wall Street. The other plan is on page 4, item D, of your meeting agenda. Major DP 16-12, an amended final development plan for South Creek Park, this property having an address of 2361 Harrodsburg Road. There is one other plan on your consent agenda. It is a development plan recommended for approval of a one-year extension of approval by the staff. It appears on page 5, item G, of your meeting agenda. It is DP 2015-70, Sebastian Property Unit 2, and amended final development plan for property at Trailwood Lane. At this time, Mr. Chairman, the Commission can consider approving these plans, as has been recommended either by the staff or by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Commission, a member of the audience today, or an applicant would ask to withhold that approval to allow the plan to be further discussed prior to voting by the commission. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to pull one of these off or wants to discuss any of these on the consent agenda? Goodloves, page 3, item D. My client would like to at least meet with Kevin for just a second and confirm some information that just wants to be clarified with. So I don't know that we oppose it, but maybe if we could delay it, it'll be heard after the consent item. Okay, so you want to pull that off for the time being? Yeah. Just to make Kevin's here. I think we can make some clarifications with Kevin, and then he can. Okay, so you want to pull the good low one off? Yeah. All right. I just heard about this, so I apologize. We can go ahead and approve the consent agenda in taking the good, low property off, and then if you all want us to hear it, we'll hear it. If not, we'll... Is that right, Mr. Can we do that? We can do an abbreviated hearing. We can do an abbreviated hearing. Okay. So we'll either pull it off and then have an abbreviated hearing, and you'll let us know. Yeah, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Berry. All right. Do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda minus page 3, item D? No. Is there a second? Second. Second, McCarroll. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. All right. Then we'll move on to our first hearing. Mr. Chairman, as luck would have it, the first item is that item on the top of page three. Would you like to go out of order, perhaps? Allow them a little more time. I guess the situation makes us have to go out of order. I think so. all right we'll set up for the next item thank you While we're waiting on the status set up, Mr. Cravens wants to move the bonds. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the release and call of bonds. Second. Most have been made and seconded to Mr. Craven's approval. All in favor, let's vote when it comes up. Thank you. We have a waiver request on this one. We have two on the 10th. One on this one, one on the other one. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I was checking something on the agenda conditions, just to be sure about them. The plan on your agenda is Plan Major Development Plan-16-4, Newtown Springs, Lot 1. This is a final development plan for property that is located at the intersection of Newtown Pike and Citation Boulevard. You can see that they are proposing an 8,900 square foot building in this location, combination gas, retail and restaurant, gas pumps proposed in the front along with accessory parking. They are proposing a drive-thru in this area and this area as well. around the building. Included in this final development plan is a retail building in this location. Again, with access through here, back here onto Newtown Center, and with associated parking with the retail building. It is a little over 6,600 square feet in size. When this plan was originally presented to you, there was a lot of concern about access and the function of the overall development. Subsequently, as you're aware, and it was on your agenda, you have a final development plan at this location as well. This area here is here for informational purposes as a preliminary development plan, just to demonstrate the overall access, parking, function, movement within the property. It is a revised plan, obviously, since the original one was just this area here. We have highlighted for you the legacy trail that runs along Newtown Pike in this location. Here we have Newtown Springs. This is a public street. Newtown Center, public street. These are collector-connector standard streets. Newtown Pike is a major urban arterial. Citation, as it goes towards Russell Cave Road, will be a collector street. The conditions that you can see on your plan are fairly standard. They will have to get the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee approval of this plan, as others that we have on the agenda. The plan has been revised to show, again, movement, parking, and cross-access on the properties. The principal concern has been conflict with the drive-thrus and some internal conflicts. but it's not on your agenda and that's what I was checking for because normally you would see on your agenda provided the Planning Commission grants a waiver on this property and that condition did not make it onto your agenda and again I apologize for that I was double checking to see you do have a waiver report it's been distributed to you it is Newtown Springs amended not to be confused with the other one which is Newtown Springs, lots 4 and 5. The plan, with the exception, again, of some concerns about internal movement and the drive-throughs, has come down to the waiver requests and the access into the site. This is the major concern, the major issue that has evolved on this plan. Again, at this revised plan, they're requesting a write-in at this location. They're requesting a full access point at this location, and you can see here, this is the public street, which is built and dedicated at this location. The revised plan does address staff's concern about a service road, serving and development. and they are establishing this as their service road. Again, from Newtown Springs, they're proposing this full access point with a break in the median at this location. For informational purposes, you can see they're showing a future request for right in, right out at this location. This is, of course, subject to KDOT approval as well. In the future, it would require a waiver request from this body as well. We've tried to highlight the access points for you with this revised plan. You can see the movement we've highlighted. They are also proposing four access points to Newtown Center. I want to demonstrate a little bit of history for you on this property. As you all are aware, this was originally a much contested zone change, and this was how it was approved, this overall plan in this location. New Town Springs, it was conceived as a place, as a destination, as a neighborhood. This is a large retail center that was proposed, and this is the area in question today with the final development plans. This is a P1 area that has not been developed. We have townhouses in this area, single family here. As you all may be aware, there has been a zone change proposed for multifamily back in this location. And here we have a Trilogy Assisted Living facility that has developed on Citation here where Asbury comes into the Citation Boulevard. What we have for you today is the approved development plan for this location right here. This was approved for a Rite Aid. And you can see this is what they requested at that time. They requested a right in, right out. Of course, they had a drive-through. Here is the public street. Here was an access drive that would serve the property that is in this location here that would serve out to here. That was how it was envisioned and approved at that time. what was approved and certified was a write-in only the write-out was not approved what it was certified for this applicant was a write-in they are requesting a write-in as well well. Staff's primary concern is a two-way access point this close to the spacing here. This doesn't even meet our local street spacings, this full access point from here to here. Staff has very strong public safety concerns about the conflict with the traffic movements in this location. we are concerned on multiple levels not just for public safety staff is very concerned about the possibility of precedence and the fact is it will be a precedent we currently have a zone change on citation boulevard to the west with frontage along citation we currently have a B6P area that's already been rezoned and not developed. It's a Meyers site, known as a Meyers site, on Georgetown in Citation. We have a site that you're well aware of on Leestown Road in Citation, Citation Village. It's not yet been developed. Staff met with a real estate professional to discuss that site, and one of the major issues we discussed with the gentlemen was access, both from Citation and Leastown Road into that location. In addition, when the assisted living facility was developed and they built part of the road, as you may recall, to serve that facility, there was discussion that was put off to a future date about access of Citation into that assisted living facility. the p1 area as you're well aware there's a lot of changes going to the ed area there's p1 developing there we've got the cold stream across the street it's not outside the realm of possibility we can see a zone change here for commercial heavier residential again so we're very concerned about the precedence of establishing poor access along citation drive The applicants submitted this revised plan and some supplemental information. They've stated primarily that they are facing hardship. One aspect of their hardship is economic development of the site. Staff can tell you that, frankly, we hear that from every developer in town for every piece of property on an arterial. They all plead economic hardship. They have pleaded some hardship related to the layout of the property and to its distance in relationship to the road. In addition, one other item that was submitted is they have submitted the supplement information stating that this qualifies under innovative design. And they cited the service road and the access internally. The staff would tell you that this is a better plan internally, and this service road certainly makes this a better development. But service roads are required by your land subdivision regulations. And the definition of a service road is that it is a local street parallel to a higher classification street to provide access to the properties and to minimize access to the higher classification streets. That's the purpose. It's one of the reasons it's required. So when you take all those various things into consideration, including ample access to a public street, which, by the way, reflects the original plan, they were utilizing access to a public street. In fact, this plan relies very heavily on the public street system. staff in reviewing this again we are recommending disapproval of this full access point at this location we are recommending approval of the write-in and we think that'll answer their economic concerns we do believe it needs to be reviewed by traffic engineering the ped planner to be sure that its location is optimal and at its safest location and will function both for their needs and for public safety. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the plan subject to the conditions that you see and of course subject to the waiver request today. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Cravey? Tom, Tom, you're saying you disagree with the full access point up there? I'm sorry, Mr. Craven, you'll have to. Where the service road comes at, you're saying, I mean, you all say you disapprove the waiver for a full access. For full access, yes, sir. We are approving a write-in only. What do you want to see there? Here? Well, actually, our full preference would be this right here. Okay, so how do they get back on Newtown Pike? Public street system. This could terminate here to the existing access easement, which was present on this plan and was envisioned on the original plan as well. Wait a minute. So you're down there to, is that a gas station you said? That's what they're proposing. So you've got to go up and through that other lot to get out. Yes, sir. Access easement. It's what it is now. It's been planted as an access easement to serve all these properties. That's what they do. They serve property. Yeah, I know. Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? Yes, Mr. Chairman, that dialogue confused me then. What's that do to the parallel street that runs through the property? The service road? Yeah, the service road. It would, in essence, do this, and these properties could access this portion of the service road. We would consider this, for instance, to be an aspect of the service road, all designed for internal circulation, parking, cross-movement, again, to mitigate access to the higher classification highways. Does that congregate traffic in a parking area up there next to that other building? That would be something that would be subject to a design consideration. Yes, sir. We don't like parking in the service roads. But we have compromised on that on numerous occasions. Sure, go ahead. Get my microphone on. So that is a proposed gas station. We're looking at tankers going in, offloading, because they can use that right in, and then they're going to have to traverse through, kind of wiggle through to get out of there in a tanker. Well, that is a legitimate concern, and I think that's something to be worked out with the applicant traffic engineering. They have turning radiuses and things they examine, and I would agree that that could be a concern that needs to be addressed through design. I don't have an answer for that particular issue today. Any other questions? One more real quick. So, Tom, the precedent-setting aspect of this is the proximity of the one you want disapproved to Newtown Center? Yes, sir. It's spacing. I mean, and again, they're asking for a waiver. This spacing doesn't work. Our standards don't differentiate between the type of access. but we're a little more prone to favor right in and right outs because of median controls and the ability to put in a desal lane and that sort of thing this is pretty close we would like to see it further back so I guess I'm confused because everything I'm reading in your reports and with the waiver is approval for this disapprove this disapprove the full access, approve the right in We are recommending approval of the right in, right out, or not right out, right in, subject to review by our traffic engineering. Any other questions? Mr. Berkner? If I'm looking at this plan right, it looks like Citation is going to be maybe four lanes down to Newtown Center, but then goes to two. Is that correct? It is. Does that not mitigate the possible conflicts? It might actually make them worse because of the amount of traffic that would be on two lanes and traveling through there. And I probably left out a little bit of information that is important. Newtown Pike is a major urban arterial. It handles 32,500 vehicular trips today in this location. It handles 36,000 vehicular trips on another part of Newtown. And it is, and it's in your report, is one reason I didn't mention it, but it is in your report. Newtown Pike is part of our designated freight network nationally. So it carries, as you well know, if you've traveled at a disproportionate number of tractor-trailers. And that's anticipated only to grow. The Newtown Pike is on the state's improvement plan to be widened by 2019 in anticipation of the increased traffic. And certainly connecting Citation to Russell Cave, it's already been connected to the west and south, the Leastown. We should only expect additional traffic on Citation and on Newtown. And to staff's estimation, good access control is absolutely vital to how these roads will function successfully. We don't want to have to retrofit them like we have in so many circumstances, spending millions of dollars to retrofit. We've done it on New Circle Road, Nicholasville Road, those places, all retrofitting bad access. Well, I'm talking about Citation Boulevard, though, not Newtown Pike, because that's a different road altogether. Where they're proposing this access is out onto Citation Boulevard. And I heard you say might. Is that all we have? I mean, that it might be worse? Might. Might it not be mitigated? Well, I would say this. We have land subdivision regulations based on engineering principles that seek to reduce conflict. We've utilized them for years. This spacing does not meet, and it is bad spacing because it will increase conflict. That's what it will do. The level of conflict? Yes, that's hard to say, but we would anticipate it would increase conflict. Okay. And I think I would say that without it, it changes the whole access to the interior of the whole development. Let's hear from the applicant and hold those questions for the discussion part. Thank you, Mr. Barton. Applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing Newtown Springs, LLC. Tony is handing out our letter revising our waiver request information. Tony had put a letter in earlier, and we wanted to supplement that yesterday to the staff, and we're handing that out, and hopefully I'll ask you to adopt that as the waiver. As I said, I'm here representing Newtown Springs, LLC. The principals are Rob Rosenstein, who is not here. Jeff England is here, Development Director of Newtown Springs, LLC. Tony Barrett of Barrett Partners, our designer, is here as well. And as you all know, we had a discussion at the Zoning Committee last week, and the zoning committee did vote, I think, 5-0 to recommend approval of this and send it on to you. And most of the discussion was about access points at that time. This property has some severe development impediments related to it. Yes, it was rezoned 15 or 20 years ago, but as you all know, if you've been out there, nothing at all has happened on this property for 15 or 20 years. and we believe that a good part of that relates to access situations on there, as well as we want to build up the neighborhood out there to have a neighborhood support for this. And it was discussed in the Winburn-Russell Cave Small Area Plan that was recently adopted. That plan called for increased access here, and it called, I think, for denser development on this property, which we're meeting. And we have responded to the small area plan as a contrast from what we originally shown by putting an access road in here. And that access road, I think, was called for on that small area plan. As you know, here's Newtown Pike. This confuses me because north is over to the left on this one. If you're going to the interstate, you're going left. And east and west are vertical on this one. But here's Newtown Pike, here's Citation, which is built to this point. Here's Newtown Springs, which is built through here. Newtown Center Way is built as well. But the plan called for us to have an access road, and we do have an access road through there. This Rite Aid plan, which was approved six or seven years ago, 2007, excuse me, more like nine years ago, was proposed by Rite Aid and submitted by Rite Aid. You can see their name is on it. And we do have to point out to you that was never built. And Rite Aid went to the expense of doing the development plan and then pulled out of the project. I don't know exactly why they did, if access had a part of that or not, but they did not build this plan, which was approved back in 2007. But I want to go over a couple things on the plan with you. The access situation is this. If you're coming from the interstate down here, from this direction down, and you want to get into this shopping center, you've got one chance to get in because there is a signalized intersection here at Citation Boulevard and Newtown Pike. And if you're coming down there and you're lucky enough to see what you want to get, maybe you can figure out that you've got to turn left to get into this. Because if you don't turn left, you're done for, because there's no median break in Newtown Pike the rest of the way to get there. Newtown Springs Drive is only a right in, right out. You can't get there if you're coming south from the interstate. You can only get in Newtown Springs if you're coming north out of the city. So if you're looking for the convenience store here, some of our other retail here, if you miss it, you're shooting right on down Newtown Pike past it. And I point that out not because we can do anything about it, because we can't. That's in the state of control. This is not a median you can cross in your SUV either. It's got the six-inch high curbs, and then it's got the grass in the middle, and you're going to have to go over it to get there. People don't do that out there. But that's an impediment that everybody who wants to locate out here has to think about as far as getting traffic into this property. It's a real impediment, and we're luckily at the point where we're getting some users out here who feel they can use that. But because of that, we have to maximize our ability to get people in and out of here. And I'm going to go through a couple scenarios with you in a minute, which shows you what problems we have if we don't have this ability to turn right or left onto Citation Boulevard, where the access road comes out. I want to tell you a couple other things about the property. One is, the staff has colored in this. This is a 75-foot green space setback through here. As you can see, the legacy trail goes through there. But it's 75 feet that other retail places don't have. Rob Rosenstein's company gave the city the right-of-way, or the city or the state, whoever did it, the right-of-way for the Legacy Trail. I want to say they gave it. They didn't sell it to them. They gave it to them. But that's another issue that potential users have to consider when they're coming in here. and I want to emphasize too we're not discussing today what we're showing is a right in and right out on Newtown Pike that's not something we're asking for a waiver today for because the middle lots are still in preliminary development plan stage the only thing we have is the final is this lot over here and then later on we've got another one on this lot over here but these middle lots are still preliminary development plans. So we're not here requesting your waiver of that. We know we've got to go through a state process and submit traffic studies and all that. So you're not acting on that today. We're not getting that approved today. We're showing it for conceptual purposes on this preliminary development plan, but we recognize that. So that's not before you today. The service road, as I said, goes through here. Tony Barrett redesigned this after submitting the first plan to show this service road at the request of the staff. And Mr. Martin said the staff is glad that we do have the service road because it's the best way to serve this. Otherwise, we have a tier of users up here and a tier of users back there, and they're driving through everybody's parking lot to get back there, and that's about as confusing an access situation as you can get. But for this to actually function as a true access road, we need this full access point onto citation. This point is 394 feet back from Newtown Pike, 394 feet back, which is a football field and a third back from Newtown Pike. I want you to think of this scenario. If I'm coming out of here, I'm coming out of the access road from visiting one of these stores, say this store, you can't. This is only a write-in. This is not a write-out. You have to go back to the service road to get out. And let's say I want to get to Newtown Pike, which I think the vast majority of people coming out of here for sure now will want to get back to Newtown Pike. Say, I want to get back to Newtown Pike. If we cannot get through the median on Citation Boulevard, what's that person have to do? He's got two bad choices. One is they have to turn right. He's going to come down to this intersection of Newtown Center Way and Citation Boulevard. And there he's got to make a choice. Okay. I know I can make a U-turn right here and go back to Newtown Pike because that's the way I came in. I know I can make that U-turn there. But that's also the point where this road is transitioning from four lanes to two lanes down here. And I think the plan is that Citation Boulevard is going to be two lanes from this point over to Russell Cave off here. So they can make a U-turn there and come back and turn up the light. U-turns, I don't think we want to encourage those. His other choice is to take a right on Newtown Center Way, come down here, and come down to Newtown Springs. But you know what happens when they get down there? they can't turn left. They have to turn right. So if they want to go back to Lexington, they have to turn right, and then they have to figure out how to get back and go left again. And so what we're saying is there's major consequences here about not putting a full-service intersection, median opening, at this property. It's going to lead to mass confusion out there. I'd like you to consider the plight of another motorist on here. Once we get New Citation Boulevard connected through to Russell Cave, we are going to have some traffic coming in from Russell Cave to use the shopping center. That was one of the points of the small area plan, that we needed to have the connectivity between these areas so that people in the Russell Cave area could come over and utilize the shopping facilities in the Newtown Pike area. So we're going to have a traffic coming from Russell Cave over Citation to Newtown Pike. Again, if you want to get to one of these stores, you're coming down here and you're coming in and approaching this intersection, and you want to get here to the store we're proposing or any of these up here, you're not going to be able to see and know that if you continue on Citation Boulevard, you can't get to these places from here. You don't have another opportunity to turn on the service road here. Again, this person's going to end up being channeled down to Newtown Pike. If they don't know, they have to make that turn. And then come down there, and they're going to have to make a choice to head out to the interstate or head back into town. And if they head back into town, they can't get back here again because of the right in, right out at that location. so again it goes back to the fact that this access road which I think the staff and us all agree is important to this and we put it on at their behest cannot really function as a access or service road unless we can turn left or right out of here because it's going to lead to lack of choices or poor choices by motorists if because of visibility because of the meat lack of the median opening and all that sort of thing we discussed here we the staff and their staff report had referred to this as a right in right out and I think on the report on the waiver they've recommended approval of a right in right out at this location I want to clarify that we are only showing this as a right in we are not requesting a right out at this location that will the fact we're not having a right out will mean that we're not adding traffic out here which is going to pass by this access road and cause any confusion there we will not be having right out traffic coming out of here going up citation Boulevard to this point. We're only requesting a write-in at that location. As I pointed out, the citation transitions from 4 to 2 at that point. I know there's concern about precedent. What precedent will this set for others? This is a waiver question, and you all consider waivers on their own two legs each time they come before you. You've got to look at the totality of the circumstances for each piece of property. I don't know what other properties are going to ask for, but I do know here we're severely crippled by the access situation, and I think not allowing both directions to turn out of the service road is only going to further cripple this. This area will be creating jobs. We feel some of what we're proposing today on these plans is going to create 100 new jobs in the community. And again, we feel our access situation is very superior to many other areas in the community. We, Tony and I, looked at Lansdowne Shopping Center. Now, Lansdowne Shopping Center was built many years ago. It functions well. It is thriving. I'm not sure they have a single vacancy in there. The parking lot's packed every time I go through there. It's doing well. But they have direct places where you pull off of Tates Creek Road directly into a parking lot. We don't have that here. We have greater spacing than a lot of the access points they have at that point. It's a Malibu Drive and come into Tates Creek in front of the service station and that sort of thing. And I only point that out to say that we think we're doing a better job with traffic management here, But we have to bear in mind that our access does have a relation to the success of the shopping center that we have here. I've submitted my letter here, which is, if you choose to adopt it, I hope you'll adopt it as your findings in favor of this. again this has been redesigned by tony and jeff and previous plans have not been built for whatever reason and we're mindful we're not unmindful of traffic safety considerations but based on experience with tony and jeff and others here we feel that traffic and safety will be enhanced by allowing people to turn left on Citation Boulevard. We have a unique situation. Once you get funneled back out to Newtown Pike, you're lost. That customer is probably not coming back because it's just too hard to come back. They're going to speed back out to the interstate, or they're going to come back into town and find something there rather than trying to find their way back into the shopping center. So it's extremely important to us. We thank you for hearing this, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Questions from Mr. Murphy? I have one. Carol? You said that there was 394 feet off of Newtown Pike to the first. Did I hear you correct? It's to this point. Oh, to the second one. Okay. That point is 200. Excuse me. I'm getting, Ms. Brown, I'm putting a laser in your face. I apologize here. It's because I can't hold my hand still here. It's 230 feet from Newtown to this right end. And how far is it from the second access point to Newtown Center Road? From this point here? Yes. From here to here? Tony, do you happen to have that measurement? We can probably come up with... 202. Tom Martin says 210. So 230 here. This distance is just under 400 from here to here. And then another 210, 220 from there to there, apparently. Mr. Brewer? We don't want people driving through parking lots to get to us if they don't have the service room. So the staff is clearly recommending disapproval of something you say you need. What's your concern about taking their recommendation and having the service road go up to Newtown Center? Oh, well, I don't think that's been the recommendation. The recommendation is to have a service road to serve the two properties. I think we're all in agreement, staff and us, that this service road is good here, rather than having just a bunch of interconnected parking lots. I don't think there's been a proposal to bring a service road. Service road, I think, served by district. No, I didn't make myself clear. The service road stays up until the point where, yes, right there, and then you turn up toward Newtown Center. That's what I understood, Tom, to have recommended as a solution to avoid the proximity of the dual access in Newtown Center. I don't know. That's just what Stash recommended. I'm not sure. I didn't actually say it was a recommendation. It would be an option. A service road does not have to have two terminuses on public streets necessarily, and we are recommending against the one on citation. The service road is designed to serve the properties, again, to reduce access points onto the higher classification highways. Okay, I understand that, but it seems to me we've got very conflicting recommendations coming through that we don't want to give the dual access on citation and have the break in the road. That's a clear disapproval from staff's recommendation. That is correct. We'd say that goes away. So in order to then not be in a situation that Mr. Murphy was describing, sort of lost in the parking lots, the only logical one that I see anyway is what you recommended, which is have the service road not have access on citation, but to funnel the traffic to Newtown Center. That would be an option. We're not offering to redesign the plan here tonight, but we think that would be an option. If I can respond to that, I think. The issues, if you do that, if you say turn this to come up through the parking aisle here, we're still having the same problem with these people coming from Russell Cave. They're not going to know that they have to turn here because these businesses are not yet visible to them. They're going to miss it, and they're going to be lost. They're going to be out to Newtown. That's our problem with it. Anybody else? If I may offer a couple of clarifying points, perhaps. You may do that, but we need to still have citizens comment, too. Oh, I'm sorry. If there's anybody in the audience, sir. If there's no further question for the applicant, does anybody in the audience want to comment on this? Nothing, Mr. Martin. We'll hear you. Thank you. And, again, the report that you have before you, the references to the right in and right out, those are typos that just happened because we were editing this report this morning in response to the supplemental information that we received from Mr. Murphy. So, again, we were very much aware that they were only requesting a right in only. It's just, again, those things happen when you edit reports, particularly under the type of deadline that we were facing this morning. And I would, in reference to connections to the small area plan, and certainly we support those. Staff recommended those. And we would just add that what we're talking about are public street connections. It's exactly what we're looking for to connect those in. And we believe that Russell Cave folks coming this way, at least after the first trip, they're going to know what's here. And there's ample access off of this public street. So we feel like there's a certain effort to accommodate the lowest common denominator when it comes to driving habits and abilities. But, again, that's all I had to say. Mr. Bundy. Tom, how far is it from Citation Boulevard to where you are suggesting that they put that drive aisle through there out to Newtown Center? I want to be sure I know what, because I know this gets confusing, what we're talking about. And again, we're not suggesting an exact design. We're recommending against this spacing and this full intersection. And we have situations all over town where people access service roads through service drives. Some have more parking than others. I understand that. And so, I mean, you want to know what this distance is? No, I want to know the distance from the corner at Citation Boulevard. From here? To where you're suggesting. That distance is approximately 200 feet. Now, we measure from center line to center line, so it's probably more than that. Sometimes it's deceiving because we measure from center line to center line. So it's not any better than the other access. Yes, but this is a different classification street. Again, you have to look at the classifications of your streets and what they're designed to do. This is designed for through traffic, primarily. This is designed for local traffic. This is what this is for. This is here to serve this development. That's its purpose. Tom, what's on the other side of Newtown Center? right now. Up here? Lots of pretty grass. Rabbits, groundhogs. No, this is P1. It's not developed. There's townhouses developed a little bit beyond that. It's not developed. Lots of pretty grass over here, too. Okay. Mr. Murphy? Staff, can we conclude? Can we say this is your rebuttal, or do you want to... I'm fine. As long as I reserve the right if I need to re... Do you have any rebuttal? Okay. Then the Chair will call this closed. Yes, sir. One thing I forgot. On one of the notes for the staff, they call for reciprocal parking and access. we'd request that that be changed to simply reciprocal access because we have it designed so every lot meets its own parking requirement here. We're not asking for shared parking because every lot is meeting its own parking here. And that's the way usually users want it. They want to just maintain their own parking lot, tell their people to park in our lot, not to park next door. But we do understand the need for access. So we just want to take out the and parking and the reciprocal parking and access on note. Twelve. I don't think staff has any issue with that. They will have to maintain their parking. Yeah, twelve, sorry. So you want to take and parking out of that? Yes. Okay. Okay. The Chair will turn it over to the Commission. Might suggest that we deal on the waiver first, because the waiver is the whole issue, really. The staff is recommending approval on the development plan, but the waiver is the issue, so we'll focus on the waiver. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir? If I may, before there's any motions, and I don't mind making motions, a couple of comments. One, I appreciate the staff's concern and their interest in wanting to stay with the subregs on this. I think this is a very unique piece of property in the fact that I'm going to call it landlocked. Otherwise, you can't get to it. and personally I don't think that's correct we should be able to provide access in some form or fashion the applicant has amended this they've worked hard over the years they obviously could not get it developed in I think they said 20 years time legacy trail has been donated I think there's a lot of unique situations here that would not go to other property throughout the area that would allow the so-called precedent setting. Citation is going to be narrowed down to Tulane going east. It's four lane in most other places that I know of. once again the corner piece of property is very very difficult as Mr. Murphy showed as far as getting to U-turns would be problematic driving through other parking lots would be problematic and for those reasons I'm more than willing to make a motion for approval Anybody else want to comment before we get to the motion stage? Yes. I think I'm in agreement with Commissioner Owens, but I want to make sure that I am. I understand the concern about the full access on Citation Boulevard, but I also understand the traffic confusion without it. It seems to me that if I were not familiar with this area, if I were from out of state and lucky enough to find my way into that gas station, I probably could never get out. I'd wind up like the guy on the NTA in Boston. I'd be there forever. So there's got to be something to relieve or rectify that. And if I interpreted what you said right, Mike, your motion would allow the full access. Yes, sir. I second his motion. He hadn't made the motion yet. But we'll get to that in due time. I apologize for getting ahead. If everybody else has commented, my comment is if you're going to approve the full access, you don't need the right in and right out. And my reasoning for that is that you've got people that are riding across Newtown Pike to get on the Legacy Trail. That's how you cross Newtown Pike. If you have the right in and right out there, you back traffic up, which conflicts with the people that are going across that intersection. So if the commission is going to go with the full access, I don't know why you need the right in and the right out. The first one, if you're going to go with the right only, if you're going to go the full access, why do you need the right in? Well, the way that's designed right there is there's a drive-through on that side of the building, and it goes directly into that. Well, I guess I ride bicycles out there and you don't, but that's my concern. Because crossing that thing, is there more? Yeah, I've got just one other comment. I mean, I agree. This is a unique situation, a lot of ugly aspects to it. So I applaud the team for putting together something that they can sell. So one part of the argument for the access of citation is that somebody coming west on citation wouldn't be able to see this in time to turn left at Newtail. I really don't buy that argument because I don't think when you get to the access point you have any better visibility of what the opportunities are for all these businesses. So, again, I tend to stay with staff's opinion on this. So I'm confused. I'm not sure how this is going to go in my mind, but I don't think that that part of the argument makes sense. I think you get no more visibility or ability to turn in by the time you get to this access point off the citation than you do it at Newtown Center. Anybody else in the commission? Mr. Knott, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, one other comment, I guess, in regards to what Mr. Brewer was saying. I just feel like that full access would be needed to allow people to get back out and not have them going through other parking lots. and, you know, as Mr. Murphy said, if by chance they do get out and make a right-hand turn, they're going to come down to Newtown Springs, and their only option is to come back north at that point. You know, if they went in there wanting to come out and go into town and go south, they can't do it, you know. So, anyway, you want a motion on the waiver first? Yes, I'd like to have a motion on the waiver first. Ma'am? I'll take it either way you want to go it, but to me the waiver is a critical issue here. Okay. If you don't pass the waiver, you don't have it. Hey, I'm with you. I'm just trying to figure out which one it is. Here it is. Plan MJDBDP 16 Quad 4 Newtown Springs amended. I would move for approval of the waiver of land subdivision regulations for property at 1445 Newtown Center Way, Citation Boulevard, for the following reasons. One, the applicant has demonstrated exceptional hardship as required under Article 15A of the land subdivision regulations due to the fact that a continuous median and limited accessibility to the development hinders drivers from being able to gain access to the development in a convenient, logical, and orderly manner. To granting of the requested waiver for the full access point will allow for desirable general development as proposed pursuant to this plan and cause no detriment to the public good by allowing for convenient and logical traffic flow within the development. So, Mr. Motion has been made. There's a second. Second. Holden, second. Vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Or the waiver passes. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Motion on the development plan itself? Yes, sir. Please. Plan 16-4, Newtown Springs, Lot 1. I move for recommendation of approval. With the 13 conditions, change in number 13 to resolve circulation, do we need a 14 for the waiver since we've already approved the waiver? No, sir. No. Okay. We need to change number 12 to take out. I'm sorry, yes. Number 12 to denote there shall be reciprocal access throughout the property, and number 13 to resolve circulation and use of second drive-through facility. Thank you, sir. Is there a second? Second. Motion made in the second. Vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Staff will set up for our next hearing. Thank you. Do they want to keep going or go back and pick up Goodlaw? Okay, we don't need to go back to Goodlaw? Okay. They're gone. What do you want to do? What do you want to do? Mr. Chair, we're trying to determine if you want to move down the agenda to what would be Newtown Springs or step back to Goodloe, which got pulled. Let's go ahead to Newtown Springs. I just learned about the Goodloe. We'll do it next. Thank you. All right. It'll be abbreviated here. Yeah. We're going to let go. He didn't do that anyway. Right. All right, then. Mr. Chairman. we're gonna we're gonna make it easy and we're gonna stay out at newtown sprain that's that's what i wanted you to do and we're not going very far at all yeah we're and now we're just headed back towards town and this is the final development plan that i mentioned that is again on a part of the overall development here they are proposing a tire retail store in this location. It's 7,900 square feet. You can see the circulation pattern. They have bays that come in on both sides of the building and with accessory parking here and here. They are requesting a full access point in this location, which is 144 feet from this intersection. This is a right in, right out off Newtown. This is the terminus of the proposed service road at this location here at the back of their property. And again, this is the crossing for the Legacy Trail, and we've already been over the entire plan, so I will not belabor that point other than to, you can see, access here, service road back in here, cross-access would be in this direction across through here. This plan, similar to the last plan is actually fairly straightforward. It comes down to the waiver request. They have requested a waiver on the spacing because it's necessary and required. Again, you can see your conditions. We have stated, I'm sure they may want to change this as well, there should be recycled parking and access on the entire property. Again, I think you know that at this point in time it's access is the concern here, that they will meet their parking. They, too, are in the Royal Springs Aquifer area and will have to be reviewed for that committee. And due to the nature of the work, there may or may not be additional water quality standards they may be asked to meet. That is not unusual in this regard. And that does bring us to the proposed access location. and the second waiver report that you have on Newtown Springs. And again, this is a very similar waiver request. It's a request for a full access point on a collector-connector street that is too close and does not meet the spacing standards relative to the intersection with Newtown. Now, as I stated before, this is right in, right out. They want full access. This is a full movement along this street. There will be full movement through here as well as here. Staff met with the applicant, and we discussed this at length. And we discussed with them their ability. Could they move the building? Could they change their design? Could they alter their parking and access? to address our concerns, again, with public safety and with the conflicts, because this is a very short distance for a full access. Basically, they said they had one other design, and they just really didn't have anything they could do. They had expressed concern about fire movement. And again, obviously, we want fire circulation as well, just like we want safe traffic movement, and we don't want negative impacts on everybody out here. Again, as I stated before, with the other waiver, our concern is public safety for the traveling public and everyone in this area along these highways. And that this is, like I say, it's only 144 feet. And again, there's heightened concern about the impacts here and left-turn movements, left-turn movements. There's just a lot of traffic that could be traveling here again. So it came down to this discussion. They are straddling a lot line, so they're going to have to change their lot configuration to develop this. And staff was wondering if they couldn't change their lot configuration and their site layout to accommodate both their needs and our concerns. They have not proved willing to do that. So we are here today with a waiver request for that access point. staff and we talked believe we we have met with the applicant and had discussions with them on a couple of occasions the staff of course reviews this as we review all of them very closely with your traffic engineering section and we have recommended disapproval of this waiver as well and that they have not documented a hardship in this situation because there is flexibility in design and lotting patterns available to them should they choose to do so, and that this waiver, again, is not consistent with the public safety provisions of your land subdivision regulations. And that's... Question, Mr. Martin. Mike. Tom, where is the access up off the service road? Access off the service road? Is there one there? Right here. Into that building? Into this building? They're not showing one. There's access over here. They have a dumpster. They're not showing access. So there's no other way to get in there? Well, based on this plan, unless they went here like this. Or altered this. to some degree. Again, we had discussions about alternate designs, alternate layouts of the building, and moving this access point. Those were all part of our discussion. This is what they state they have to have. I don't see any way to get lost on that one. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? I have a quick, Carol. How much space is there between, are you all still recommending the four excess points onto Newtown Center? That's what is being proposed with this plan. This is a preliminary part of the plan. How much space is there between the last excess point and the corner to Newtown Springs? From this point? Yes. I'd have to estimate it's 100 and some feet from Center Line. Again, to a local, again, to this street here. Again, these are the same classification street, not Newtown. I understand. Is the traffic on Newtown Center heavier than Newtown Springs? I'm just not familiar with that. I mean, is there generally speaking more traffic on Newtown Center than on Newtown Springs? I don't really know, and I don't know what any council have done. It's not fully developed out in this area. So there's nothing on it right now? What will be interesting to see is when we get to multifamily development is how much those people try to use or desire to use this public street system. But that's an unknown at this point, of course. Tom, before you walk off. Oh, sorry. The question that comes to me right away is what impact on Newtown Pike outbound. So if you have somebody trying to turn left into the tire place on Newtown Springs, traffic is blocked there. They can't turn left. That backs up. Backs up. And there is a decel. There's no turn lane or anything. There is a decel lane. There is. There is. Yes, sir. Because this public street system goes back to the original plan. There is a decel lane. that there's not going to be impact on the... Well, we believe there will be an impact and could be, particularly as traffic gets heavier and heavier, this gets developed out. They're busy. They have a lot of traffic coming and going. It just takes one person turning left to back a lot of people up over a period of time. Again, as we stated, Newtown Pike is carrying an awful lot of traffic, a lot of tractor-trailer trucks. I mean, it's one of our highest classified arterials. Mr. Drake? Tom, is the problem just access at any place off Newtown Springs to this lot, or is there some distance between, is there some point at which it would be acceptable? That's a good question, and that was part of our discussion when we met with them. It had been suggested by our traffic engineering folks that it would be back in this area somehow. Now, what problem that creates for them, and it does create a problem for them with this layout. Because then you're bringing people into here that conflicts with their bays. And it also conflicts with fires movement. And that's true. It would. Which is why we discussed alternative layouts. Slight changes to the lotting and alternative layout. There are tire stores all over town with different orientations to streets. I mean, site plans and lotting particularly are mutable. They are. There's variations available, but this is what they state they need. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, Dick Murphy again representing the applicant on this. Tony Barrett has some proposed findings we're passing out as well, if you choose to approve this. I'm, of course, still representing Newtown Springs, LLC, which is Rob Rosenstein and Jeff England. And also with us today are representatives of tire discounters. Joey Zola is on the second row who's Associate General Counselor for Tire Discounters and Tim Dwyer of Leasman Engineering who's the engineers for Tire Discounters and as you can tell this is proposed to be a tire discounter store which installs tires and does automobile repair located at Newtown Springs Drive and Newtown Pike. They are under tremendous time pressure because because as you all may know, they're currently located on New Circle Road, and due to state widening or work on New Circle Road, they're losing their location, and they are in that period of time when they could be told any time that they have 60 days to vacate their location on New Circle Road, and they would like to move to this location right here. So they are under tremendous time pressure. I won't go over with you all the traffic situation out here because you just heard it. Hopefully we can incorporate that into this hearing. But we do have those same traffic problems here, especially with visibility and accessibility of this lot. again, we have to recognize that people coming south on Newtown Pike just don't have access to this property here because maybe it'll be visible from this, maybe you'll be able to turn left on Citation Drive. We hope they would be able to, but if they don't, they're gone. They don't have a chance of coming back here. Our closest access where there is visibility is Newtown Pike coming in here at the intersection with Newtown Springs Drive, or Newtown Spring Drive, and I want to emphasize again, this is a right in, right out only. There's one of those pork chop things they call there, which prevents somebody from turning left, but they don't really need that because there's a pretty solid median here that you can't get over with a car. So the only way you can come in here is if you're northbound on Newtown toward the interstate, you take the right in on Newtown Spring Drive to get in here. So this property, too, is severely hampered by access situations, and people who buy this property and want to buy this property have to take that into account when they make their decision. Yeah, there's 32,000 cars or whatever on Newtown Pike, but they're not going to have access to all those cars. So we have to maximize the ease of entry and accessibility into each of these lots. One of the points of the Winburn-Russell Cave Small Area Plan was density both of commercial uses and residential uses. We're trying to fit these on reasonable size commercial lots in here, supplying a commercial area for the immediate neighborhood and the area on Newtown Pike here. They have particular site-based issues here, and that is because they're a tire store and maintenance store. This is the front of the building where if you're dropping off your car in the morning, you would park in the front and come in and talk to the attendant here. Now, they do not allow customers to bring their cars to the back, and that's because on both sides of this building they have service bays with garage doors where they have people backing out and pulling in, and they arrange their sites so that they don't have customers coming in driving behind the service base. And that is the reason for this setup here, that once you park in the front, it will be one of their employees that will take the car back and drive it into the bay. When they're done, they may park it in the rear here. When you come for your car, they're going to get it for you and bring it to you. and so they don't want customers driving around in the back here. Now, yes, we could perhaps put this access point back here or back here if we flipped the building. In other words, had the customers coming in in the rear and the service base facing out toward Newtown Pike. We don't want that, and Newtown Springs LLC doesn't want that. they don't want to present their rear to Newtown Pike, be much more attractive to have the front of the store and the place where the customers enter facing Newtown Pike. If we're going to do that, we really need this for the safety of the customers. We also have delivery trucks coming back here. They don't want the customers' traffic mixing with the delivery trucks in here. And that is why for this use we do not have an access point off of the access road here because they just don't want people, customers are driving through and around here with all the activity and the backing and coming and going through the bays that they have up here. So that's a unique thing about this property as it relates to this customer. this point of entrance is about 141 feet off of Newtown Pike which is about 7 car lengths and I do want to point out that I think there was discussion there is a D-cell lane northbound on Newtown Pike coming in here so people slow down before they come into Newtown Spring Drive and they do have to slow down because of that pork chop in here It's sort of a unique entrance, and it's not something you can just glide in at 45 miles an hour. You've got to slow down to come in here. So traffic is slowing down, and it passes the 75-foot green space here, then comes into the property and has space to make the turn into the property on here. Yes, it is technically a full-way intersection. You can turn left or right out here, but the vast majority of the traffic coming in is going to be coming in here, taking the left end of the property. When they leave, they're going to be told how they can get out to Newtown to come back toward town, or if they want to head north, they can just take a right out and come back out here. So that's the situation on this property. We do have the right in, right out. We have the desal lane here. You can only enter in on northbound Newtown Pike. It's 141 feet back. We're trying to maximize the customer safety. It does have the benefit of emergency vehicles being able to come in here. This is connected parking lots. They would have access into all of the commercial properties along Newtown Pike here If they can come in here and have access in their way, it's a much safer situation for emergency vehicles. The speed will be low coming in here, and we think it works for this situation. We think we have unique circumstances here that justify us having the waiver of this connection here. We think there's plenty of room to make it in here again. and I can answer any questions you all have or the representatives of tire discounters can answer any questions you all might have about this as well. Any questions for the applicant, Mr. Murphy? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Yeah, so I'll go back to your discussion of flipping it and moving the access point, which would alleviate my concerns about what's going to happen on Newtown Pike. So I can understand that you don't want to put the rear forward, but that could be dressed up in a number of ways to make it look attractive. It seems to me that that makes a lot more sense from a traffic flow, alleviates the concerns that the staff has suggested. And as far as the emergency vehicles, they have access at this other point, full access left or right out of there. So I don't think that's a rational argument either. So is it just optics that you're talking about as far as why you would not be willing to flip the design? Well, I think having it in the back also confuses customers coming in. I mean, because normally you park in the front and put your cars in, they're going to have to figure out that you're supposed to come in the back, not the parking area that you see here. If you put it in the middle, they're going to have to choose which way to go. They have an option there about heading to the back. and again we think it's a confusing traffic situation for people there and and you can dress it up but these are still going to be service bays out at this end of the end of the building facing newtown pike well according to the design there you got a green space i don't think there's service bays on the back end now service bays are on the lateral side the long long sides yeah they're all long here without see they're long here in the back right well not they're along the sides or the service yeah you don't have entrance into the service space here in the rear you have a little green space but they're clearly they'd be clearly visible right so so again i think anybody that was if you flip the design and the access point was was right up there with with where you want the customers to enter. I don't think there's any confusion for the customers. They're going to be pulling right in just like they would, but without having such proximity to Newtown Pike. We just don't think that works through the customer confusion and the aesthetics of the building. The tower on the building is, they have the little tower with the little roof on the building there, is where the customers go. And it just doesn't work here. Tony Sears. It also affects the interconnectivity of the other lots that are planned to tie in here. If tire discounters, if it's flipped, this becomes their controlled service area, which is back here, and it would conflict with their desire for safety of their customers to keep them from having to, and the general public, from going back along the back of their building. They want to contain their customers and the public in this front area. So as the connectivity from this next future developments, there's a reciprocal access between these two. that would be putting these lots into their controlled service area. And that would not be a desirable relationship. Plus, it would bring the dumpster out to the front. So that's an optic as well. But interconnectivity and the security of their yard, their vehicle storage yard, would be compromised. mr drake my question is a variant i guess of uh of patrick's uh that's a discussion of rotating the building 180 degrees and it looks like what you see on the on the plat that wrote it wouldn't fit if you rotated it 90 degrees it would eat up the whole width of the lot take two lots is there any other design of the building that will accommodate the requisite number of bays, et cetera, that will yield a different footprint. This is Tim Dwyer, engineer from Leasman Engineering. Good afternoon. Tim Dwyer, Leasman Engineering, 4820 Glenway Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio. Tire discounters did have a third prototype store. It was a long, skinny building, but it ended up not working out for operations. That prototype has actually gone back to the drawing board, and they're working with the architect to come up with a long, skinny building that will work for these particular areas. But as of right now, the prototype that would apply here is off the table. In order to turn this 90 degrees, there is an existing sanitary sewer and storm sewer easement along Newtown Springs Drive that would conflict with turning the building 90 degrees. The building, you're right, would not fit in this lot. Thank you. Sure. I wanted to address a couple things on this plan. Traffic does have concerns with the proximity of the entrance off of Newtown Springs. And I think one thing I would like to kind of address is that we don't want to look at designing this site for entire discounters. We want to look at this site and the access point and the spacing. We don't know what the future will hold, but that access point will be there. We pretty much can guarantee that. I think spacing-wise, the concerns traffic had were traffic blocking that entrance, so vehicles coming off Newtown would not be able to make the left end and would back out onto Newtown. And I know there is a desal lane, but there's still that concern there. Thank you. Any questions for traffic? Yes. Will? How long is that desal lane? I don't know how long it is. I kind of looked back there, but I couldn't have a scale to really measure it. So if it was longer, would that make it shorter? I don't think it would because I think there's also concerns with rear end because kind of like it was stated people coming off new town you have a nice wide radius they can come in there at a higher speed and if you have someone sitting there rear end collisions would be a concern even if you move the entrance to the other end of of the lot i thought it was a stacking issue the number of cars you could stack. And I think that's part of it, too. I definitely agree. But we don't know how many we can even stack right now. So, okay. Anybody else? If we were, as we were discussing, you flipped it and had the access point up at the other end, would that alleviate your concerns? That would. There are other concerns that that brings about, but I think that design-wise that's a better option. It does put the entrance more in the curve, which I usually am up here saying don't do. I think that there's things we can put on the plan to dictate that area as a site triangle to prevent landscaping from being planted in that specific location. Any other questions? Without that entrance, or if that entrance is altered, what impact will that have on the future development of the site and the need for that right in and right out at the center of the property, which will be contentious at that time? Right. From traffic's point of view, and definitely they can give their side, for northbound traffic, if you pass the Newtown Springs entrance, then you have the option to access it at citation. so you know we discussed earlier the comment was made that we look at these waivers on a case-by-case basis so when i'm looking at this waiver it's a little bit different situation and if you're traveling southbound on newtown you don't have an option either way so it doesn't it's kind of irreverent to the newtown springs access point and i think the site needs access that's not traffic is just suggesting that the spacing from the Newtown and the Newtown Springs intersection be farther. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes, sir. One question. If that access was moved to the back side of that lot, what happens with the reciprocal access throughout the front of those other lots from a traffic standpoint i would prefer it because it eliminates you know the fast straight through traffic um i mean it doesn't we're not treating it as a service road so we're not changing that part of it, I don't really think it affects it. You would still have it. You could just, instead of going straight and accessing Newtown Springs, you would circle the building or dead end into that parking lot. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? is there is there anybody in the audience wants to comment on this mr. Murphy you have any rebuttal I want to bring up something that definitely slows traffic down here a couple of things One thing is that the taper coming in here is 135 feet long, full taper. Tony was checking this when we were talking. Plus 80 feet or 85 feet of taper, plus 135 feet of full D-cell lane. So it's about 210, 220 feet total, which is a very long lane coming in here when you can slow down coming in here. Another thing we haven't discussed is right here. You see these big black lines through here. This is the Legacy Trail. For some reason, the Legacy Trail swoops down and crosses Newtown Springs right at the intersection of Newtown Pike. Now, the practical application of this, and I've done it walking in there, you basically have to stop right here before you turn on Newtown Springs Drive because you have to look both ways because there's people on bicycles zipping past you. And I learned that you have to stop because a lot of the bicyclists don't stop here. They come straight on through, and they're expecting you to stop for them, and you should because this is a marked crosswalk, and the pedestrians have their right of way here. It's not just a crosswalk like we have downtown. It's about, I don't know, 10, 12 feet wide here as well, which I know I had to stop right here coming in, which got me to zero before I turned in on Newtown Springs Drive. This is a good setback from this as well, so not only do you have the taper, but you have this distance here as well from coming back from where the Legacy Trail crosses coming into here. So that's a factor which is unique here, which slows traffic as well. We think that this presents better access in for fire and other vehicles to come into the property. Again, we don't think that by flipping it we're not accomplishing anything for the aesthetics of the area, aesthetics of Newtown Pike, our main entrance in here from the north and from the interstate. Putting it back here puts it in a curve. You're having to look around coming in here for traffic down here in this way. We're not in a curve here. We're in a straight shot with good visibility either way on this instead of this location. And, again, if somebody else comes in here, you may have to look at the plan again if tire discounters doesn't come in. But they have unique safety concerns with their customers here. which I think are very understandable, want people to be able to get in here, identify where they need to park, and not mix the traffic up with the users in the back. So they have explored. They're not trying to be, you know, it's my way or the highway. They've explored trying to change this, and they haven't been able to come up with a plan that works on this property. So, again, for all these we feel unique circumstances, we feel that a waiver is certainly justified on this property. Thank you. Mr. Murphy? Just a second, because I want to talk about the legacy trail. We have the exact same situation on our property on Newtown Pike, and there's stop signs on either side for the bicyclists. Is that not the case here? I think there are, but I saw them, I mean, I can say I saw them zipping through. I don't know whether there's stop signs or not. I think there are, but they're just... Well, again, we had the exact same thing on the Luxmark property, And I've never seen an accident, never heard about an accident of a vehicle turning right into our property across Legacy Trail. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the distance again. So anyway. Well, what I'm saying is when you cross these big 10-foot wide pedestrian crosswalk, it makes it obvious that pedestrians have the right-of-way there. I think that's the state law that they have the right-of-way. and you have to be cognizant of that as a motorist, even if they do have a stop sign. Well, if they have a stop sign, they don't have the right-of-way. So I think that's something that you need to clear up, either traffic or somebody else needs to clear up, because I don't think that that's the case. I think you have people turning right off of Newtown Pike onto Newtown Springs, and they're going to be flowing completely free. The problem is not going to be the legacy trail. I think the problem is going to be stacking from the proximity to that entrance. I'm sorry. I was basing this on my own experience Tuesday night when I had to stop for people who were crossing in front of me and seemed to feel that they had the right to cross in front of me at this intersection right there. Let's stay on rebuttal here. Do you have something I'll add very quickly? Yes, sir. As you guys know, Tiger's Conner's is desperately seeking a new site for their store that's being taken away from them. Everything outside of our boundary for the final development plan is still preliminary. Even the access drive going from Newtown Springs to Citation is still preliminary at this point. If we can't get an access onto Newtown Springs to our site, I believe we'll have to come back for another plan, which will set us back even further. Tires is desperately searching for a new site. We have worked with staff on multiple different scenarios. we have moved the building from further back to closer to match the existing DDP that had been approved years back. We feel like we have worked closely with staff to come up with the plan that we have, and Tires and Conners is really, really searching for a new site to keep their employees employed. We don't know the exact deadline. We don't know when the store is going to be closed. All we do know is we do need an alternate site so we can open up a new store to keep the employees employed. Thank you. Thank you. Tony, is this new information or rebuttal? We'll make it quick because we've dragged this way too long. I just want to clarify with regards to the stacking. This roadway here is 41 feet wide, which is significantly, that's a wide street. that will enable cars to bypass a car that is turning left. So there will be room to get around that to reduce the stacking of cars turning left. Thank you. Thank you. Staff rebuttal? Okay, hang on just a minute. Do you want it for the applicant or for the? For the applicant. All right, we'll take it right now. I want to clarify, I think, what I heard while ago. from the gentleman from Tired Discounters. The lease or land transaction for this site has not been consummated. Is that correct? Can you please repeat that? The lease or land transaction, whatever you all are going to do with this property, if that hadn't been consummated. So you're not locked in. I believe we are under the purchase and sales agreement. I'm sorry? I believe we are under the purchase and sales agreement. I'm not understanding the question. So you thought the property, that's what I'm asking. No, we're under contract to purchase the property. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right. Stay for battle. Don't stay for battle. Okay, we'll turn it over to the commission. Will? I got one question, Tracy. I mean, we had a similar situation for full access on the other end. We had those findings. Would those still apply, or do we need to make some changes to that if we were to go the way of full access? They could be similar, but they can't be exactly the same because this circumstance isn't exactly the same. So, you know, we would have to tweak them a bit, I think. Okay. Okay. Anything else? If there's no further comment, then the chair will entertain a motion. We can do it one or two ways. We can either do the waiver request first or you can do the development plan and then do the waiver request. At your disposal. Well, do we not need to do the waiver first? Well, for the reasons that we did it last time. I did it the first time, but my appointed vice chair here told me I did it wrong, so I was trying to appease him. So being as I got the gavel, I'll take the waiver request first. Yeah, I probably will do it wrong again. That's right. Well, I want to make a request for an approval of the waiver, but I'm going to need a few minutes to work up the findings here. Berkeley. If you can use the findings that the applicant provided, we've looked at those and they're agreeable to us. Not agreeable, but acceptable might be a better word. Okay, I'd be fine with that. So I'm going to move for approval of the waiver for the reasons cited by the applicant. Motion been made. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Okay. Discussion on the motion? Do not vote when it comes up on the screen. 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Are they tied? They're 4. Is it 5-4? Okay. 5-4. Okay. Carries. Mr. Payson, then you want to go on with the... Yes. Okay. Move for approval of PLN-MJDP 16-13 for the 14 reasons noted by staff. Changing number 11 to read there shall be reciprocal access on the entire property. Oh, reciprocal parking, isn't it? Reciprocal access. Okay, taking parking now. All right. So scratch parking and. and changing number 14 to resolve. We've already done that. Do we even need 14 anymore then? No. So eliminate number 14. Okay. You understand the motion? Take it out of parking and eliminate number 14. Motion made and seconded. No. Karen Mundy. Vote when it comes on the screen. All right, we're going to move now to the item that we pulled off the consent agenda for abbreviated hearing, page 3, item D, Goodloe. Thank you. I didn't know it was going to get pulled off the consent agenda. So we have a small version. Subdivision committee saw this. Subdivision committee saw this one. I said, I'm sorry it wasn't colored up. It wasn't blown up for you guys. This is a major subdivision plan for Goodlow's property for Keller's subdivision. This is located off of Indiana at Skane Street. Indiana runs parallel to Midland. We have the Herald Leader down here. We just saw Skane, a property being developed over here on Skane Street a month or so ago. They were doing an adaptive reuse with it. This here is showing they're creating, there's a building here, and they're wanting to subdivide that building into three individual lots. So you can see that we only have ten conditions. The first five are just typical sign-offs, and then we just had a couple of cleanup conditions, noting that this was in the infill redevelopment, building line setback. Redevelopment of these lots must comply with the downtown streetscape. And then there's a driveway agreement, maintenance responsibilities. In here, they have a driveway that was with this adjacent property. This was going to be access to their parking that they had available for the adaptive reuse. and there was to be an agreement between both parties as to the maintenance of this. So we just wanted to have verification on that. If there are any other questions. Any questions from Ms. Cobb? Applicant? Good afternoon. Kevin Phillips with Inner's Engineering. I don't have anything to add. I think that the property owners met after the consent agenda, and I think they came to terms. There was some misinformation about what was going on here, and so they just wanted to make sure everything was kosher before they moved forward, but everybody was fine, and they've all left today. So we're not back on the consent agenda, but you all are all right. Is that right? That's correct. All right. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I think that they've all agreed to differences in the left. Make a motion for approval. Motion has been made and seconded. Vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you all. Thank you very much. All right. Anybody need a break while they're putting it up? Let's take a five-minute break. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody's back. We're going to page 5, item F. Okay, this is a final development plan for the Burke-Hawkins-Smith and Maggard property. We are located out Georgetown Road at Sandersville. We have a Tomah Drive coming in the rear. This is an industrial area. We have residential off to the side here. They came in with the zone change just a few months ago, and now they're coming in with the final development plan to apply their buildings and connections to Georgetown Road and Sandersville. Okay. With that, the first 10 conditions on the plan are our typical sign-offs. That also includes the Division of Water Quality for the Capacity Assurance. Then we had a couple notes, cleanup notes, also to note that this is also in the Royal Springs Aquifer, so they will have to go to that and have approval prior to certification on this. We do have waivers as far as to the access to Georgetown Road and the land subdivision access point and service road. If you'll look in some of the information that you all received, there should be a couple letters that you all received. And these are making reference to the setbacks to there were some concerns over the location of the gas pumps to the residential here and also to having the storage, auto storage, close as to location adjacent to the residential. and with the zoning ordinance, there's a requirement in the B-3 that makes it saying that the auto storage has to be 200-foot setback. So speaking with the applicant prior, discussed that there might be a variance need to be approved by Board of Adjustments or else they're going to have to redesign the location of this building to meet that portion of the ordinance. and Tom's got the information on the waivers. Okay. Any questions for Ms. Galt before we get to Tom? Mr. Martin, you're up. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we have a waiver report that we've handed out to you. And there are actually two waivers requested on this property. And I might add that Mr. Murphy was kind enough to point out our typos on the right in and right out. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that they failed to ask for one of the variances that we have been kind enough to include in their request. again what we have here is a proposed commercial development along georgetown road there is a full access point at this location that aligns itself here with access they are requesting the variance for the right in right out location here you can see the very large design pork chop you need you need a well-designed significant pork chop in this location to discourage the wrong movements because there are no median controls in Georgetown Road. And you might wonder what some of the differences are with our previous, with Newtown Pike, for instance. Well, this is a slightly different classified arterial. It's a lower classification. It carries 23,000 plus traffic vehicular trips in this area a day, as opposed to Newtown Pike, where we explained to you they carry 32,000 to 36,000. So there's less traffic being generated on Georgetown Road. The waiver is only a 14 feet. That's really a negligible distance with the provision of a desal lane and a strong design here to prevent traffic problems. The other traffic variance that's required is actually from this service road. And you can see what they've done in response to staff's concern about the service road requirement for commercial development is similar to what you saw in Newtown. They left parking up front. They provided a nice, clean access road into the development. And you can see how nice and clean this is without any conflicts, without any parking along it. And staff, again, would agree with the circulation they have on each lot and with this access road through here out to this point that that will allow for that interior movement that we think is very important again and they have ample parking for each use what staff discovered and we again we go from center line to center line and there's about a 20 foot difference between this access point and what the regs call for so we've included that in our waiver report that they need a waiver on this spacing at this location of about 20 feet. So this is a 14 foot waiver in distance. And this was 20. The other interesting little thing that waiver that's requested on this property, you can see the Royal Springs aquifer break right here. And this part of the property is subject to review by that committee. This is the high point. for this property and there's access to public sewer down over here on the southwest corner of this property or they may have to bore under georgetown road to get to public sewer those are their first two options this obviously was probably their preferred option boring under georgetown would be very expensive and potential problems etc so they're requesting a waiver to to your sanitary sewer requirements so that if they have to fall back on the waiver, they will. It's not their first choice. And that waiver specifically will allow a pump station for this property. And we've crossed this bridge before at Manchester Street, you may recall, that that property couldn't be sewered and they had to build a private pump station. And staff would stress it will be private. It will not be public. It will never be public if they have to choose that option to sewer this property. And certainly the inability to sewer the property of public sewer would constitute a hardship. Again, I'm sure they'll elaborate on this, but they intend to explore the option of accessing sewer here or under Georgetown Road as well. That will allow gravity. See, that's what your regulations require, gravity sewer. and that's that's what the waiver is for because they'll need to put you possibly use a pump station so again the waiver requests that you see are for this slight spacing on the service road and for the right in and right out staff is recommending approval of the requested waivers in this instance for this particular property and i would quickly elaborate just a little bit Just to be sure you understand the issue here, this building has to be 200 feet from the residential zone, which comes right down the center line of Sandersville Road. Or they will have to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment prior to this plan being certified. The gas pumps, it's a 50-foot distance from the residential, and staff is confident this plan meets that particular requirement. Any questions, Mr. Martins? Just one clarify, Tom. When you started, you started talking as far as the variance, but you were talking about the pork chop. I think you were talking more about the waiver as opposed to a variance. Well, the subdivision regs, we call it a waiver of the regulations, but it's actually a distance variance in the subregs. We're together. Okay, thank you. Staff will occasionally use those words interchangeably. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Mr. Martin? Applicant? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy representing the applicant who is Kentucky Hill Properties. Matt Burton is the owner of Kentucky Hill Properties, and Matt Carter is our engineer from Vision Engineering. As you all may recall, you heard this as a zone change last year. was approved by the Urban County Council after a hearing there as well. And we're coming back with a final development plan because we do have a particular user for the property at the corner of Sandersville Road and Georgetown Road, which is right here. I want to thank the staff for compensating for my lapse and the distance there. I appreciate that. we point out each other's errors to each other on this one. And the staff has made us aware of the spacing requirement. This is an auto parts store and regional distribution facility. There is a provision in the ordinance that says that it has to be, the facility has to be 200 feet from a residential zone. So we're in agreement with the proposal I think Mr. Martin put forward that we'll either have to change the configuration of this building before it's certified or we'll have to go to the Board of Adjustment to get a variance of that distance requirement. So we're aware of that and agree with that. I wanted to just point out to you about this building, which is the most immediate concern we have here. It's not what you think of as a convenience store. Most of those are about 2,000 square feet. This is a 15,000 square foot building. It's going to have a deli, produce, bakery, meats, frozen food, that sort of thing, that a grocery store type range of items. And it's also going to have a hardware component of rakes, shovels, no shovels, that sort of thing, and small hand tools and that sort of thing that would be serving the area. So it's much bigger than a convenience store. It does have gasoline pumps out front, but it's not what you would think of as a convenience store. We did ask for the waivers, which Mr. Martin has pointed out. We have talked to the state about this right in and right out, and they've given their tentative approval. Mr. Carter has to submit all the engineering plans, but they've had a number of meetings and received tentative approval from this in this location. This pork chop is extended, maybe a little more than a normal pork chop, to prevent people from turning right, or excuse me, left out of there. And we agree with the staff reasons for granting the waivers they've discussed. And the other one, they're close. It's one's 14 feet off, one's 20 feet off out of 400 feet. So they're very close anyway to not needing a waiver. The other was for the pump station, and as I explained at the subdivision committee, we have three alternatives to sewer this. One is a sanitary sewer down here behind the mini storage facility on Atoma. Second is boring under Georgetown Road. Both would be gravity. We would not need a waiver. only if those two fail would we have to use a pump facility so we're asking for a waiver for our third backup possibility of doing a sanitary sewer work on this property so we're pleased to present this to you we did agree with it's time of zoning which we're reflecting on here number of screening conditions and that sort of thing along here and we ask for your approval and ask for your approval of the waiver and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Do you have any questions for Mr. Murphy? No questions. All right. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this? If not, the Chair will turn it over to the Commission. No other comments? I'll go ahead and make a motion. Mayor, you're ready. You want me to do the waiver first again? Either way you'd like to do it's fine with me. I'll go through the traditional route. All right. I move for approval of the item we're considering PLNMJDP 16-14. Second. I'll second. Motion been made and seconded. Any discussion? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Am I looking at something wrong? We have two discussion items on this. The waiver will take care of those. Are we dropping those two then? Mr. Brewer? I'm trying to get clarification. Okay. Yes. Do I need to state that, or is it implied 13 and 14 can come off? So you're deleting 13 and 14. Correct. All right. Is the second okay with that? Yes. All right. Go right ahead, sir. All right, we've got a motion and a second on the, not the motion, the development plan. Vote when it comes up. Okay. That passes. Mr. Brewer will entertain the waiver request. Make a motion for approval of the associated waiver. Second. It hasn't been made in second. I hope when it comes up. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I guess it was all good. It was. No doubt about it. We should have never gone as far as we went. The question is, how do we get out of it now? I'm not such a simple uptower. We continue. But they've got a new development. Next. Well, you've got a zone change in development. Mr. Chairman, let the record show that I was not present at the last meeting when this item was initiated, so I will abstain from consideration of this. Doody noted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, good afternoon, Commission members. This item appears on page 6 of your meeting agenda. It is MAR 2016-10. This is an amended zone change application from, seeking a zone change, from a single-family residential R1C zone, that is a typo on your agenda, to a requested neighborhood business B1 zone for one net acre property, and a zone change from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to a neighborhood business zone for .92 gross acres of property. These properties having an address of 2090, 2094, and 2098 Harrodsburg Road. So the staff has presented to you on a gray sheet and a blue sheet separate recommendations on the development plans that have been reviewed by one of which has been reviewed by the commission. This is a continuation of your hearing from August 11th, and at that meeting, the gray sheet was before you, reviewing one of the development plans that we put on the board. The blue sheet is for a revision to the development plan that Mr. Martin will present to you in just a moment. The staff has provided to you draft minutes of your hearing from August 11th, and again, this is a continuation of that hearing. primarily, I think, because the Commission wanted to afford the applicant the opportunity to revise their development plan in a fashion that could be considered for approval should the Commission wish to recommend approval of the zone change. Also, we have sent to the Commission members not present at your hearing last month the written record that was submitted at that meeting so that those of you who have reviewed this information in the video can fully participate this afternoon. With that, the commission had heard testimony about the rezoning of the property, and at this point it's probably best for the staff to present to you the development plan the petitioner has since submitted. Mr. Martin will present that to you, and then presumably your hearing will continue from that point. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. As you all recall, this was the plan presented at your last hearing that you expressed reservations on. And this is primarily for two or several reasons. Three, one, it did not meet the setbacks of the requested zone, which, of course, as you are aware, is a build-to line, 10 to 20 in the B-1. You can see that this plan had a building in this location, access off Springhurst. They had drive-through location here. They were showing a building in this location, and it had subsequently come to light with the tree inventory information that this was an extremely large 69-inch caliper red oak tree. There are other significant trees along on this site as well, particularly along this back property line. There's a lot of trees on this property. And as well, a write-in, write-out, which again, without the service road, that does not meet. There's spacing issues, again, with access all associated with the write-in and write-out that don't comply with your land subdivision regulations. And due to that discussion, you all gave the applicant an opportunity to return with a new plan. they are maintaining access off of springhurst they have adjusted the buildings so that they meet the b1 setback in this location you can see there's no drive-through there is associated parking with the proposed development cross-access they are proposing a interestingly configured building in this location. You can see it. And it is an attempt to accommodate this very large, as I say, 69-inch red oak tree. Now, if you were to follow the requirement in Article 26 of our ordinance for tree protection, the zone around this tree would extend over 100 feet. And it, I mean, it puts it out to here, out to here, out to here, out into here. I mean, the impact on this portion of the development is significant. Now, that's an idealized requirement. That's a perfect circle. And I doubt if there is a perfect root zone, of course. But that leads us to our discussion about the tree and one of the reasons we're making the recommendation that we're making on this plan. the right in right out has remained on this plan they're showing a possible future connection into the old springs motel development that you all are very familiar with that would cross the drainage area in this location into a parking area and drive aisles that exist on this property not only are there spacing issues with this right in right out a desal lane starts in this location, and it's relatively short to serve the Springs Motel. And you can see there's no median control, no effective, I might say, a median control for this right in and right out. And it, again, would be anticipated that there'd be tremendous abuse with people trying to go left out of here on Harrodsburg Road. And you might find it interesting to know that this area of Herdsburg Road is carrying over 30,000 vehicle trips a day in this location. So it is heavily traveled, as you all know. Staff did review this, and you have the blue handout. And staff at this point is still concerned with this particularly. This is a public safety issue from the staff's perspective. And then, although they have made an attempt, what this tree really needs to be protected, staff believes needs to be investigated by an urban forester, an arborist, someone who can really dictate the appropriate protections that would then dictate the design on this lot and this building. And we'd also like some attention paid to the large trees. It's tremendously valuable as screening to the residential neighbors behind this development. With that, staff at this time is recommending disapproval of the plan as submitted. And again, should you choose to approve the plan, you can see we have conditions for you. Those are fairly standard conditions for a preliminary plan, including those items that I've covered with you, which would be removal of the write-in, write-out, and that mitigation of the site conflicts, with significant trees be determined at the time of a final development plan, again utilizing a report and recommendations from an accredited urban forester, and then denote that access to the adjoining development shall be determined at the time of the final development plan. Any questions, Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, right in, right out. I'm sorry, explain once again what the problem is. Is it location or? Location, distance. It's a poor, the distance from the intersection. This intersection does not work. There's a desal lane right here. So you're creating a conflict immediate with people crossing, with people hitting the desal lane, Herdsburg Road. And this is a full intersection right here, not across the street, obviously. But this is ineffective median control. Okay. So there's a strong concern with this location and with the right in, right out. You know, we support them with good median controls. Okay. And then clarify for me, you were talking about the tree and subject to final development plan. What could be done grading excavation-wise up until the final development plan? Well, I think, again, this being a preliminary, but at the time of a final, they would need to talk to an arborist. We've had some plans where design's been dictated on the recommendations of an arborist. Can they do any grading or excavation prior to the final development plan? No, sir. They cannot develop off this preliminary development plan. They cannot. Any other questions? Applicant? Mr. Chair, if I could at the outset, just a procedural situation here. With this being a continuation of the hearing, if it be the Commission's preference, I can address the issues that have just been brought up, immediately move into my rebuttal, get on with the deliberation, if that be the Commission's will. I think rebuttal is all we have left. Rebuttal is what you had. The only thing that's keeping us from doing that by the book is the new development plan. so as far as the zone change is concerned we pretty much heard the pro and con against you know for and against that uh we'll give some people in the audience time to bring something new to us but we don't want to go back and and lick this calf all completely over what we want to do is we want to discuss the merits of this and the zone change but let's go to the rebuttal apart from the zone change. Let's start there, if you can. Okay. We'd prefer to start with the development plan and then to the rebuttal? Yes. Okay. I can be very, very brief as it comes to the development plan. There seem to be two significant issues here. And as much as I'm sure you all would be elated to discuss Article 6-8Q3B of the land subdivision regs for what, by my count, would be the fourth time today, and a new word that I love, a pork chop. That is my new favorite word. Let's skip that. Let's make this easy. Close that access. Certify the plan, and let's close it. And then let's come back at the time of final development plan and have the discussion that you all just had on three final development plans, which is clearly a fact-intense discussion about use, about layout. Let's do it at that time. So we'll agree. We'll agree to staff's alternative conditions here. Let's close off that access, We'll come back and have a discussion at the time of the final development plan. To give some perspective about why it's there, if you look at this property, there's literally no way we can access Harrodsburg Road based on spacing. This is, we thought, the best that we could get to, but they're basically trying to keep access out of Harrodsburg Road. That might be okay if we can negotiate access to the Baptist Health property. And this is US 68, state-controlled highway. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is going to have an opinion to be made. But this, again, I think is a final development plan issue. Conceptual plan, we went over that kind of ad nauseum last time. I don't intend to repeat it again. Conceptual plan will evolve once final users are identified, as is the case on pretty much every preliminary plan you all review. Newtown Springs, fantastic example today. Preliminary plan approved. Everybody thought that development was great. specific user with specific needs comes online, we have to look at changing the plan. That's how this process is supposed to work. So we'll agree to take out that access. Now with regard to the trees, we've done everything we can to try to save trees here. Come to find out in additional conversations with Mr. Query that 69-inch red oak may not in fact be able to be saved, that it's already quite sickly. But we will agree to work with an arborist to determine what is the best, whether one, what trees are actually healthy and merit-saving, and two, what impact that has to have on our design. We're more than agreeable to that condition. So in terms of the two issues that staff has identified with the development plan, we're agreeable to both. Let's close that right in right out for now, and let's have an in-depth conversation based on facts. And with the trees, we've done a lot to save the trees already. I want to point out that the fence line trees, there was testimony, and I'll touch on this briefly in my rebuttal about they helped block the sun coming down Harrodsburg Road. Those trees are still there. They're not going anywhere. Those trees are still going to be there. Those tall trees along the property line will remain. Trees at the back, you can see colored up here, there's been an effort made to preserve those trees. We really have tried to do a lot with this plan with the trees. Again, we're going to have to come back to you and seek final development plan approval. You will get to look at what trees are going to stay and what are going to go at the time of final development plan. So those are kind of the issues as I see them on the development plan. I would like you to see that we did work hard. Tom Lambden's here with Abacus Engineering, had a couple of different meetings with staff, really has tried to clean up this plan to your approval. I'll roll into rebuttal and I'll be very brief. I have only three points to make based on what was raised last time. I would reserve the right to the extent new information is heard by the commission today. I'd like an opportunity to briefly rebut it at the end. I don't know that that will be necessary, but these are my three primary points. I heard a lot of testimony about traffic on Springhurst Drive. There's really no incentive to send traffic down Springhurst Drive. There's no reason to drive past the entrance on Springhurst Drive. It is a dead-end street. It doesn't go anywhere. Signage can be employed on the site to inform people that if you turn left, you're going nowhere. There's a dead-end sign on the street today. So I think the concerns about traffic on Springhurst Drive, while I certainly understand where those concerns come from, there will not be a lot of traffic heading down Springhurst, and this is as close to Harrodsburg as you can get on Springhurst. So that would be the point I would make. In addition to the fact, I would again point out to you that these properties have been functioning as commercial properties for some time. I've already kind of hit the point on the trees, but I do want to say again that we have had discussions with Mr. Query. We will employ the services of an arborist when a final development plan comes through to save the trees, for lack of a better way of putting it, that are worth saving. And then back to the point that I've been trying to make from the outset. Zoning is really about use. What do we think is an appropriate use for this site? This is along a significant arterial. Mr. Martin just told you more than 30,000 cars. drive past this every day. I'd point out to you that even with the ride-in, ride-out, if this were, and remember, this is R1C for one piece. This is R3, but it's restricted R3 for the other piece. If it were to ever cease to be a daycare, it has to go back to single-family residential. So for at least two of these parcels, if they remain single-family zoned, they're going to have to have driveway access onto Harrodsburg. That's two entrances onto Harrodsburg versus the one on the plan. Single family residential on Harrodsburg Road simply does not make sense. And by making a decision today, you get to send a message about small lot infill within the urban services boundary. You all read the same Herald leader that I do. There was even an informal discussion at zoning subcommittee already. The urban services boundary battle is gearing up. So you have an opportunity to express support for small lot infill that we're going to work with developers on challenging sites and get appropriate uses in appropriate areas. Or we can maintain a status quo, R1 being the least efficient land use that we have within the urban services boundary that is an AU. AU obviously would have the least, but R1, least efficient use of property you can have along a significant arterial next to unrestricted B3. This is an use for the site. We should encourage retail and higher intensity uses by our significant arterial roads, thus preserving the neighborhoods that are set further back from significant arterial roads where R1 zoning is far more appropriate. The final point I want to make is that there was a lot of testimony about the availability of other retail sites in the area. The former mall site across the street really had a lot of retail space available. Look at the outlots and you'll see that they have pretty well already filled. And so I'd ask you a simple question. I was going to use Commonwealth Stadium as an example, but I'm still a little sore from the football game on Saturday, so I'll use Rupp Arena. Do you want a seat in the front row or do you want a seat in the back row? The reason you're not seeing commercial come into that mall site is because they're not visible sites. They're behind the outlots that have already developed. R1 with visibility on significant arterial roads is needed. This proposal makes sense from a land use perspective and you're going to have an opportunity to work out what I would call the minutia, the trees, the access, when a final development plan comes through. The use is appropriate. Harrodsburg Road is simply not an appropriate corridor for single family residential. We'd ask your approval of the zoning application. I'd be happy to entertain any questions, but that's the extent of my prepared remarks. Thank you. Staff, do you have any rebuttal at this time? Mr. Chairman, it may be better to say rebuttal after all the citizens have spoken. Okay, I was just trying to do it in accordance to our regulations. Frank, one thing, I just realized I'm talking to staff that I was out of the country for the preliminary two. So I'm with David on standing. Okay. Then that's due to noted also. We'll go to citizen's comment at this time. And we're in a little different situation here. So let's try to keep our comments. Let's try not to go over the same thing that went over before. I know it's been since August the 11th. I can't even remember what you said before. So I'm going to trust you all to not do that. I will try and keep my comments brief, and I do want you to recognize all the people that are here today from the neighborhood. If you remember, you received, I believe, over 140 signatures on a petition against this rezoning and site plan. And this is, I think, number four, maybe. I also wanted to make sure you understand that there is no one, no one in the neighborhood that has spoken or spoken in favor of this development, this rezoning, just so we're clear on that. Staff clearly gave their reasons. Oh, I should probably introduce myself. I'm T. Bergman, president of the Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Organization. if there is something that I say today that is a repetition I say that simply because I want to make sure in this case for people hearing it that it is in the record because this will probably, this whole thing will probably come up again in the future. So let's make sure this one's in the record staff clearly listed the reasons that this plan is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan I appreciated, we appreciated that very much. It was a very thorough examination. I also was looking through another part of the comprehensive plan, the part that is referenced Article 29, Neighborhood Design Character Overlay, the ND1. This is not an ND1. I get that. However, in that, it clearly states that the individual nature and character of the county cannot be properly maintained or enhanced unless its distinctive neighborhoods and non-residential commercial areas are protected, conserved, and preserved. Let me explain why I referenced that. Most of you, probably all of you, are very familiar with this area of Lane Allen and Harrodsburg Road. You realize that there are a lot, a ton of commercial opportunities in the immediate area as well as very close by. So it's very difficult for anyone to make a case that we need more commercial. But I want to talk about three particular commercial sections here that very much impact this immediate neighborhood. The first one is the Turflin Mall site. They have had a very difficult time with getting that particular site redeveloped and moving again. Well, they finally got the UK Health Center there, and that is a very viable business for that lot. It's going to serve as an anchor, I believe. Now, the applicants contend that the shops, the small shops, are not going to have much visibility. Well, this is a large mall area. Get them on the lot, and they will explore. I've seen it many times. That's an important thing to keep in mind. Not everything can be built on a main road. Otherwise, we'd have a ton more main roads. I want to also say that this particular mall site is not being developed willy-nilly. They're not just, first one comes along, oh yeah, you can build here. Next one comes along, sure, build there. They've got a plan. They brought it to you. They worked hard. They thought about what's best for this neighborhood. So please keep that in mind and don't disregard what's going on at Turflin Mall. The next one I want to talk about is just opposite on the other side of Lane Allen, and it's that cross from the Shell station. It's an elderly strip mall. It's not been doing well. It looks stale. People don't frequent it very often. And if you stop to think about it, it's got real problems. It doesn't have access, good access. It lacks in creativeness. It lacks in zing. It's not there. You can see why that particular one is not healthy. Don't simply throw it out and just bring in new competing commercial sites. It's easy. It's very easy to just take down some residential property and build a building. a couple buildings. Very easy, no problem. Just do it. And at this point, we don't know what's going in there, but they think something commercial needs to go in there. That is why we're here today. However, bringing something new into this mix is not going to do a thing for that other tired strip mall. I hope through all of this, and I certainly have gained a new appreciation for the fact that if we don't help our commercial areas with neighborhoods and commercial areas don't work together, we all suffer. The third one I want to bring to your attention is Southland Drive. And all of you are aware of how vital that place is becoming. And it's because the residents, the neighborhood, and the owners took it upon themselves to try to reinvent themselves. They look to the city for some grant money, and they're bringing new ideas in there, and they're going to keep it alive. It's a historical part of our city. That's why we've got to preserve things like that. But our neighborhood wants them to succeed. Bringing in more competitive businesses is not going to help that situation one little bit, nor any of the other two I talked about. I want to now switch to something else because I know we're in a bit of a, I want to make sure we get through everything that you need to hear today. The neighborhood was not asked if we wanted these new businesses. When this plan was originally presented to the neighborhood, we were asked what type of shops we wanted to see in the plan. Well, at that time, we were still absorbing the whole idea of commercial coming that close to the residency, and we were not at a time when we could respond. Well, since that first meeting, we've determined, we, the neighborhood, have determined that the businesses would not enhance, would not protect or preserve our neighborhood, which is residential and commercial. It does nothing, but it will benefit the developers. The proposed businesses along a very busy state highway are dependent on auto traffic for their profit. Foot traffic from the neighborhood will be secondary. It will be low volume, and it's not going to keep them afloat. This will not increase walkability in this area, and there is nothing, nothing pleasurable about walking along Harrodsburg Road. I want to speak for just a minute about the tree canopy. I'm guessing all of you received the small print on this. You've seen the tree inventory. I'm assuming you have. If the zoning is approved and these businesses are built, it will result in a major loss in the tree canopy for this neighborhood. For Council District 11, which has a C-plus on the Lexington's tree canopy report card, which was completed in 2012, and it will also have a major impact on the entire community. You may remember that picture from the backyard of Mr. Lane's property, which was shown at the August meeting. The question that has to be asked today, what is the justification for bulldozing down this economic, environmental, and social benefit and replacing it with asphalt and buildings? What is the justification there? The existing tree canopy, according to the inventory, is 26,500 square feet. That's a lot for three lots. If implemented, the proposed development plan will remove 18,136 square feet of that tree canopy. That is 68% of a mature tree growth on the site. Yes, they are required to bring back 5,751 square feet. Now think about that. 18,336 square feet of mature tree canopy is going to be replaced with 5,751 square feet. Last night, I went to a session that was led by Dr. Tom Kimmerer, a Lexingtonian and the chief scientist for Venerable Trees. And he had a quote. Big trees are more important than little trees. Planting a large number of little trees that grow quickly and most likely die within 10 years is not a good investment. They cannot begin to reduce the air pollution, sequester carbon, control erosion, shelter us from heat and wind, keep us healthy, and add beauty to our lives. We need them, but they need us to care for them properly. And I ask the developers, how is this development going to sustain the environment that we live in, especially in this neighborhood? And then I have one more thing about trees. As you drive around the city in the next couple of days, take a look at what has been planted in the last 10 years in the commercial development sites and downtown. Now, how much of that looks healthy? How much of it is healthy enough to take over the workload of the large trees in our community? We have to find a balance between conservation and development. Also, please note on the plan that's in front of you how little, how tiny the green space that is available to plant the new trees and shrubs. Hardly any. My last area that I want to talk to you about is traffic. We've talked a little bit about it. If I understood what Mr. Wombaugh said, they will take out the right in, right out. That's not what I want to address. The proposed businesses are dependent on auto traffic rather than pedestrian. That's pretty clear. The residents on Springhurst have only one way to enter and leave their street. adding these businesses, and if you take out the Harrodsburg Road entrance, all of them are coming out of Springhurst. Now, the hours of operation are obviously unknown, but it is likely that at least one of these businesses is going to be reaching out to that incoming and outgoing commuter traffic during the busiest times of the day. The developer contends this strip of residential property between Baptist Health and Longview is dangerous because the residents have to back out of their drives to leave. So we thought we'd do a little fact-checking there, see exactly what is going on. There are 14 lots in this three-block area, and I'm going all the way from Baptist Health to Longview. Only four have to back out. Only four. The rest are corner lots, and they use side streets. Or they have two drives next to each other, and they share it for a turnaround. Or they have a backyard to turn around in, which is the case with two of the homes. Now, of the four lots that back out into Harrodsburg Road, all four are owner-occupied. Two have lived there 16 years, one for 20, and one for 48. So nobody's in a big rush to leave this strip. Not one of these individuals has had an accident backing out of their drive. not one. So maybe there really isn't a problem that needs to be mitigated by changing the zone from residential to commercial. I also want to make sure you understand that the three properties that are under consideration today do not and have not backed out onto Harrodsburg Road for many, many years, if ever. So, once again, what issue are we mitigating there? What safety issue? If the properties are zoned commercial, you add more cars entering and leaving these properties, which could actually create more accidents. So if you compare the zero accidents of the people backing out to the potential accidents of customers leaving these new commercial properties, I think it's pretty obvious what the results are. One final thing. In addition to looking at the number of accidents for the residents backing out onto Harrodsburg Road, we did an analysis of the accidents that actually have occurred in the past year between Longview and Lane Allen. That stretch we're talking about. Of the 32 accidents, and there have been 32 accidents in one year's time, eight occurred at the Lane Allen intersection. Of the 24 that occurred between Lane Allen and Longview, 12 were rear-end collisions. Two were sideswipes. One involved a car going the wrong way. Two were from vehicles entering or leaving an entrance. Two were from roadway or mid-block collisions. Two occurred on Longview, and there were three collisions with a fixed object. There were ten injuries and one fatality. So this is not exactly your safest place in town to be driving. Now, between 2011 and 2014, the three-year span, there was another traffic study done. It was in relation to the development that was proposed that we were considering when they developed the Springs property, because they had to do it because it was fast food going in there, so they did a study. Now, in that three-year period, 2011 to 2014, there were 58 accidents with 12 injuries. 58 accidents in three years, 32 accidents in one year, in this same strip. According to the report, most were rear-end, angle, and side-swipe-type accidents. This year, there actually was a fatality in that area, which is very serious. I think if you think about what's the cause for so many accidents, we would offer these reasons. The speed of that stretch of roadway, which is 40, posted at 40, which we know people go at least 50 going through there. There are choices that people are making as far as entering or exiting roadways. There are distractions, like making phone calls or being in phone conversations, and the high volume of traffic, as we said, 32,500 vehicles in a day. Okay, so I can conclude very quickly by saying I hope that this has given you a fuller understanding of this area, and bringing in two additional commercial buildings isn't going to do a thing. It is not going to help the neighborhood. Thank you for your time, and if there's a rebuttal time, maybe I'll speak a little longer. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We've used up a lot of our citizens' comment here, but thank you for your input. Is there anybody else very briefly that wants to speak? Please don't go over the same information that we've just heard. Good afternoon. My name is Justin Jones, and I reside at 682 Springhurst Drive, so I live on the street that we're discussing. one thing i wanted to say in response to closing the right in right out entrance with the new proposal is based on what i see there it looks as if the turn in entrance to those businesses will be behind the no outlet sign that you can see as you come off of harrisburg road there's only one no outlet sign it's very close to harrisburg road so once you turn on the street you're already past it so if someone comes out of that business and says oh harrisburg road's very backed up and they don't know our street's a dead end street they're going to hang a left and they're going to go down my street and then realize it's a dead end and go faster back up to Harrisburg Road, which is already a problem in the morning and during rush hour. So with the plan of the right in right out being taken away and the fact that the no outlet sign is located very close to Harrisburg Road, that's a big concern for me. The main reason that I'm up here is I have two boys. I've lived on the street for seven years. My children were the third and fourth children on the street at the time. We now have 15 children. So we already have a problem with people speeding up and down the street thinking they can cut through to Clay's Mill Road. Then they realize they can't. They come back down the street even faster. I've actually gotten in three verbal confrontations because I've stepped out in the street and asked people to slow down because we do not have speed bumps. If someone comes out of there and turns left, it concerns me. And the other 15 children on our street, I think, would be concerned as well. There's at least one other parent here. I don't know if there's more than one, but that's what we're looking at, and that is a big concern for me. I don't let my 7-year-old son ride his bike up and down the street because I worry about the people that are speeding up and down it, and the speed limit is 25. So thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? We certainly want to thank you all for coming back. I know this year all's time is valuable, and we appreciate you making the trip down here twice. I guess we'll move on to Mr. You have rebuttal? Yes, sir. I'll keep my remarks very brief. Obviously, you all heard my full presentation, and obviously I would disagree with some of the things that were mentioned as they directly conflict with the data we presented to you last time. But I'm not going to belabor that. I'll just hit the high points. Southland Drive, fantastic example. Glad we brought that up. You know what's not on Southland Drive? Single-family residential houses. They've clustered the retail development along Southland Drive and allowed the neighborhoods behind to flourish. That's what we want to do here. Exactly what we're proposing here. Southland Drive, fantastic example. Talk about tree canopy. Some of these trees are not healthy. We've agreed to work with an arborist to save the ones that are. The ordinance provides for a mechanism to restore trees that are taken away from development. That's part of the law. We have to follow the law. We'll restore an adequate amount of canopy. We'll save the significant trees that are worth saving. And most importantly, I want you to recall an offer that we made and we stand by from the prior meeting. We're going to plant twice as many trees as required in the landscape buffer than we would be otherwise. So we're actually going to get more canopy than we would be required to under the ordinance. We're committed to saving the trees that are worth saving and to keeping this place planted. there may have been some confusion about my prior remarks about backing out into traffic i'm just talking about cars directly accessing harrodsburg road i don't know that accessing harrodsburg road we've heard about the questionable traffic situation on harrodsburg road from the neighbors already i think a single family residential pulling out of there if they haven't had an accident there in 40 years that's truly remarkable given the 36 000 cars a day that go down Harrodsburg Road. That's an achievement and something we should commend, but I don't think it's a good planning tool and not something I think that we can use as colloquial evidence of this particular thing. 36 wrecks in a year with 36,000 cars a day, I really don't think that's too bad, but I'd point out that only two were caused entering or leaving an exit. Two was the number that we heard reported. And to address the gentleman's concern, because I certainly understand his concern, I have a three-year-old daughter. I understand not wanting kids to put your children in jeopardy. Signage can be deployed on the site, on our site, to make sure that people are aware that if you go left, you're not going to get anywhere. We're not solely dependent on the city's signs, and I would venture to guess that another city sign could be erected if it were so needed on Springhurst. We're more than happy to provide signage on our site to encourage people to go the only way that they can go. They can turn left, but they can't get anywhere. There's genuinely no incentive to send traffic down Springhurst Road. We wouldn't want it. It wouldn't help us. It wouldn't help the neighbors. We would want to do things to prevent it. It wouldn't help our customers, our potential customers, because they would simply get frustrated when they got to a dead end. We would have every incentive to route traffic back out to Harrodsburg Road. The final point I want to make, and it's one that comes up a lot in these zoning hearings, and I know you're familiar with it, but we're not trying to obfuscate anything by having not identified a user. It's not that we really have a grand secret plan and are going to come in next month with a final development plan. It is impossible to identify users for commercial properties of this nature before the zoning is in place. As I encouraged you all last time, if you know of businesses that will do that, please let me know. I have a lot of clients that would be very anxious to talk with them. This is B-1. In fact, we've offered conditional zoning restrictions to this B-1. It is designed to be compatible with neighborhoods. It sits on a significant arterial road, specifically designed zone to accommodate neighborhoods. This is an appropriate proposal, and we'd ask for your support. Thanks. Do you have any rebuttal? Very briefly now. I got it. And I do remember what you said this time. Thank you. Compatible with the neighborhood. I don't get it. How is it compatible with the neighborhood? I'd also like to speak to the red oak, the condition of the red oak. I learned last night that just because the tree canopy, the very top, looks bad, that doesn't mean the tree is dying. if we're going to bring an arborist out there to look at this tree. And by the way, when I said something to Mr. Kimmerer, who I told you is just intrigued with these old trees, he said, really? I've got to see that tree. But he's the one who said the canopy, the top tree canopy, does not mean the tree is dead. So don't count that big tree out. he says these two pieces of property have been functioning as commercial actually only one of them has and that's the daycare by the way we've talked about the needs of what this community needs this little neighborhood we need a daycare we've got millennials moving in they want to raise their kids there the closest daycare is way over on Southland Drive at the far end of Southland Drive. At least that's the one I know. We need a daycare in this neighborhood. It's perfect. Also, one more thing about this. It's not appropriate to have this single family zoning along the artery. Are you going to tell the people who live on Richmond Road the same thing? Are you going to tell all those people on Nicholasville Road that single-family zoning on a major artery is not appropriate, you can't just single out this little neighborhood. Then you have this concept for everybody if you think it's not appropriate. Thank you. Appreciate very much. Thank you for coming. Stay. If I could, our information came from Mr. Query, so I wanted to, if you all would like to speak with Mr. Query. Duly noted. Stay if you have any rebuttal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staff had three points. Ms. Bergman's comments today really have touched on two of them. The staff does believe that R1C is not preposterous here, as I think was noted at your previous meeting. Ms. Bergman, I think, has given you a lot of information today about surveying residents of this area as to that. Also, just to point out, this entire area here, south of this location, and a significant area to the north, along Herodsburg Road, is zoned R1C. We have single-family homes. We have churches, a variety of uses in this particular area. So its location on an arterial alone doesn't make it inappropriate from the staff's view. Also commenting on the slides that were shown last time about the arterials, There were three particular examples the staff wanted to mention. Richmond Road with Idle Hour Center was one that was sited in the Lexington Mall area. Directly across the street from that, you have residential zoning in that area, and that's very similar to what you have here with the old Turflin Mall site, right across the road, residential zoning. Tates Creek Road was also on the list. If you're familiar with that road, it's almost entirely residential, Although at a few locations, you do have commercial zoning for the shopping centers that are on that roadway. So again, an arterial with residential zoning, its relation to the road doesn't alone make it inappropriate. And then finally, the final point, Georgetown Road, the example you saw earlier today, with similar commercial zoning that the commission recommended directly across the street from residential zoning. Not an uncommon relationship in our community at all. A final rebuttal point. Staff said in our report that R1C and R3 are appropriate. They remain appropriate because together they can more fully support the adopted comprehensive plan goals and policies. That's the third of our four findings in our staff report. And again, just for clarification, we did not revise our staff report from that which you saw last month. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Well, that will conclude the public hearing. I'll turn it over to the Commission for any comments and or motions. Ms. Plumman. Thank you. And first, for the record, I was not here on the August 11th time, but I did watch that online, and I have since watched the proceedings a couple times and read the documents. and I don't want to take issue with Mr. Walburn but it kind of troubles me that we have a plan before us and the words become we'll remove this pork chop we'll take the right in right out we'll address this later and so what that means is we're constantly coming up with band-aids and those Band-Aids variances and waivers. And I think I will be the first to say, in my opinion, that we use those too often, that we could come up with better plans that were not reaching into that first aid box so much. Now, back to this plan, this zone change. I think the neighbors have waxed eloquently that they have a very successful neighborhood as described in the comp plan. And if you're ready for a motion. If the rest of the council, the commission is ready for it. You all ready? Okay. Ike, did you have something you want to say before a motion? Well, yeah, real quick, one, I would agree with Ms. Plumlee, but also I'm going to agree with what Mr. Sally said. I got drilled into many, many, many years ago before starting to serve down here the fact that what the staff has outlined in their reasons for disapproval, you know, before zone change takes place, you've got to be in agreement with the common plan. I think they've adequately said that it's not. You've got to show that the zone request you're asking for is appropriate. They've got their own reasons. I don't think it is. Looking at that, putting buildings within 10 to 20 foot of Harrodsburg Road with the traffic that's on it, I don't think is appropriate. and when you get down to the rest of it, I would tend to agree that a single-family residence may not be an appropriate place for Harrodsburg Road. However, there are plenty of other uses in the R1C that are appropriate. The R3 zone, I think, remains appropriate. And then lastly, there's been no unanticipated changes. So I'm sorry, I cannot support this unchanged. So, thank you. If there's nobody else, Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Hold on. Go ahead, Mike. Yeah, I've never been real warm on the design of this development plan, but I realize it's a preliminary, and something's going to get built there. I mean, that land is too valuable to put an R1C house on. I mean, if it were to go residential, I mean, you're probably looking at 40 or 50 townhouses or maybe a three- or four-story apartment building, a couple apartment buildings, and residential's there all the time, day, night, holiday. You know, this kind of business leaves at 6 o'clock, 8 o'clock, whenever they close and goes away. So just keep that in mind. Anybody else? Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. I move disapproval of MAR 2016-10 Atlas for the reasons the staff recommend disapproval. Is there a second? Second of motion. Motion made and seconded. Vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Is there a reason to postpone the development plan? May the Chair entertain a motion to postpone the development plan? Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. I move to postpone a ZDP 2016-49 Springhurst Division, Unit 2, Lots 1, Devont. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded. It is approved to postpone the development plan. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Y'all going to vote? You guys got to vote. Y'all got to vote on the development plan. Thank you. It's postponed. Yeah, it's postponed. All right, we have one more commission item. Mr. Duncan, do you want to explain what we're doing here on the initiation of the tax amendment? I believe Mr. Selle is going to take care of that first. All right, that's fine. We're just initiating. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. Just so we've got enough votes to do it. We've got to have enough votes to do it. Okay, we're fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request to initiate a tax amendment to portions of the zoning ordinance and the land subdivision regulations. This comes to us from the folks who are working on changes to the urban county government's stormwater manual. For years, the city has employed a consultant to do a lot of that work, and they also lead breakout sessions with different players in the community, the development community, local engineers, as well as representatives of the divisions of the urban county government. They are proposing text amendments to basically reflect changes that have been in the works and in discussion to the stormwater manuals for several months. They have planned for the Commission a full presentation at your work session in three weeks. But because of the way the calendar is situated, they've asked if we could go ahead and initiate this text amendment ahead of that presentation to you. This is because of the compressed schedule of the Council and also, to a lesser extent, the Planning Commission around the holiday times. So we are asking that you go ahead and initiate this text amendment, knowing that you will have a full presentation on it three weeks from today. That will allow the staff to send out the requisite notice to their neighborhood associations. It will also allow the commission to ask any questions and to review it fully before it progresses to the point of going to your subcommittees or appearing on any of your meeting agendas. So it is a timing issue that really this is being requested of you today due to the lateness of the year. I can get into more detail about the general tax amendments that are proposed if you wish, but that is why this is on your agenda and being requested of you today. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Salahee? If not, then I guess we'll have a motion. I'm being ready. Mr. Chair, move Planning Commission initiate a tax amendment to Article 19 of the zoning ordinance. Motion has been made in second. Do we need to describe the tax amendment in that motion? That and also perhaps to include the land subdivision regulations as well. I think there will be a few sections involved there. A zoning ordinance and a portion of the land subdivision regulations to implement stormwater manual changes. Thank you. Is that okay with a second? All right. Yes. Vote when it comes on the screen. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, there is no work session next week, so you all are off. We'll see you again on September 22nd for the zoning hearing. Thank you. Oh, that's good to have it.