# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - March 9, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 9, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4196 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4196?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-03-09 - **Last revised**: March 9, 2017 - **Length**: 12,856 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 March 9, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed three agenda items during the session, all of which were approved. The meeting included consideration of the February 9, 2017 meeting minutes, a matter regarding Lexington Fire Station No. 24, and an amendment to Article 6 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. The commission conducted 12 motions and votes throughout the proceedings, with no public comments recorded during the meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on March 9, 2017: • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Joe Smith • Will Berkley • Mike Owens No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on twelve items during the March 9, 2017 meeting, including approvals, postponements, and regulatory amendments. **Minutes and Consent Items** The commission approved the February 9, 2017 minutes on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Richardson [timestamp: 00:30]. Mike Craven moved to approve the consent agenda items, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee, which included approval of findings for subdivision plans [timestamp: 10:00]. **Postponements** Three items were postponed until April 13, 2017: PLN-MJSUB-17-00002 (Lexington Mall/Crossfit Maximus subdivision plan) on motion by Ms. Plumley [timestamp: 03:00], PLN-MJDP-17-00006 (Lexington Mall/Crossfit Maximus development plan) on motion by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 05:00], and PLN-MJSUB-17-00013 (Covey Ridge Development Co. subdivision plan) [timestamp: 07:00]. **Development Approvals** The commission approved PFR 2017-1 (Lexington Fire Station No. 24) with staff findings [timestamp: 20:00]. PLN-MJSUB-17-00003 (Fuller et. al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center subdivision plan) was approved with 13 conditions, removing condition 14 [timestamp: 30:00]. PLN-MJSUB-16-00023 (Denton Farms, Inc. subdivision plan) was approved on motion by Ms. Richardson with 12 conditions, revising condition 12 to meet conditional zoning restrictions [timestamp: 40:00]. PLN-MJDP-17-00016 (Lucille Caudill Little Property development plan) was approved on motion by Joe Smith with 19 conditions, changing condition 19 to resolve onsite detention requirements [timestamp: 60:00]. **Roll Call Votes** Two items required roll call votes. PLN-MJSUB-17-00006 (Turfland Mall subdivision plan and waiver) passed 6-3 [timestamp: 50:00]. PLN-MNSUB-16-00058 (Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision plan) was approved by Ms. Richardson and seconded by Mr. Smith, passing 6-3 with 5 conditions subject to Board of Adjustment approval [timestamp: 70:00]. **Regulatory Amendment** SRA 2017-1, an amendment to Article 6 of the Land Subdivision Regulations, was approved with two staff-identified conditions, seconded by Frank Pen [timestamp: 80:00]. ## Contested Items Two subdivision plans generated significant debate and split votes during the March 9, 2017 meeting. **Turfland Mall Subdivision Plan and Waiver** The approval of the Turfland Mall subdivision plan and waiver faced opposition from council members who raised concerns about infrastructure capacity and long-term maintenance responsibilities. The primary point of contention centered on the private sewer line's ability to handle the proposed development and questions about who would be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the system. Despite these concerns, the item passed with a 6-3 vote, indicating a clear division among council members on whether the infrastructure issues had been adequately addressed. **Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision Plan** The Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision plan approval also resulted in a contentious 6-3 vote. The disagreement stemmed from timing concerns related to a pending decision from the Board of Adjustment. Council members who opposed the approval argued that the subdivision plan should not move forward until the Board of Adjustment had made their determination on related matters. Supporters of the plan evidently felt that the approval could proceed despite the pending Board of Adjustment decision. The 6-3 vote suggests the same council members likely opposed both subdivision plans, though the specific voting breakdown for each member was not detailed in the available information. Both contested items ultimately received approval despite the opposition, with the majority of council members supporting the subdivision plans while a consistent minority of three members voted against each proposal. ## Approval of February 9, 2017 minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The meeting minutes from February 9, 2017 were presented for review and approval. Carolyn Plumlee led the discussion of this agenda item. The minutes were reviewed without any additions, corrections, or deletions being proposed by the meeting participants. Following the review process, the February 9, 2017 meeting minutes were approved as presented. The approval was completed without any debate or concerns raised regarding the accuracy or completeness of the recorded proceedings from the previous meeting. ## Lexington Fire Station No. 24 [timestamp: 20:00] The council reviewed Public Facility Review PFR 2017-1 for the construction of Lexington Fire Station No. 24, which will be located at 2758 Magnolia Springs Drive. The Assistant Chief of Fire Department presented the proposal for the new fire station, which is designed to provide necessary emergency services to a growing area of the city. The presentation outlined the need for the new facility to ensure adequate fire protection and emergency response coverage in the expanding service area. Fire Station No. 24 represents part of the city's ongoing efforts to maintain appropriate emergency service levels as development continues in various neighborhoods. The council approved the public facility review for the new fire station project. The approval allows the fire department to move forward with the construction plans for the facility at the Magnolia Springs Drive location. This fire station project reflects the city's commitment to maintaining public safety infrastructure that keeps pace with community growth and development patterns. The new station will help ensure that residents in the area receive timely emergency response services when needed. ## Amendment to Article 6 of the Land Subdivision Regulations [timestamp: 80:00] The board considered agenda item SRA 2017-1, an amendment to Article 6 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. The proposed amendment establishes a new requirement for developers to install permanent signage at specific locations within subdivisions. Bill Sallee presented the amendment, which mandates that developers must install a permanent sign indicating "the end of public maintenance" at all locations where private streets intersect with public streets. This requirement is designed to provide clear notification to residents and visitors about the transition from publicly maintained roadways to privately maintained streets within subdivisions. The amendment addresses a practical issue that can arise in residential developments where the responsibility for street maintenance shifts from municipal authorities to private entities such as homeowners associations or property management companies. By requiring clear signage at these transition points, the regulation aims to eliminate confusion about maintenance responsibilities and ensure that property owners and residents understand which entity is responsible for road upkeep in different areas of their subdivision. Following the presentation and discussion, the board approved SRA 2017-1. The amendment will now become part of the official Land Subdivision Regulations, requiring all future subdivision developments to comply with the new signage requirements at the intersection points between public and private streets. This regulatory change represents a proactive approach to addressing potential maintenance disputes and ensuring transparency in subdivision infrastructure responsibilities. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of February 9, 2017 minutes - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00002** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) subdivision plan - **PLN-MJDP-17-00006** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) development plan - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00013** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Covey Ridge Development Co. subdivision plan - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **PFR 2017-1** — passed (0-0): Approval of Lexington Fire Station No. 24 - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00003** — passed (0-0): Approval of Fuller et. al. Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center subdivision plan - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00023** — passed (0-0): Approval of Denton Farms, Inc. subdivision plan - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00006** — passed (6-3): Approval of Turfland Mall subdivision plan and waiver - **PLN-MJDP-17-00016** — passed (0-0): Approval of Lucille Caudill Little Property development plan - **PLN-MNSUB-16-00058** — passed (6-3): Approval of Fairlawn & W.J. Haydon Subdivision plan - **SRA 2017-1** — passed (0-0): Approval of amendment to Article 6 of the Land Subdivision Regulations --- ## Full transcript In the ability to have the station here, and this is a very well-picked space, in my estimation, and the firemen will make it part of their neighborhood. And there's great neighborhoods all around, both in your old district and in my current one, and I think it'll be a nice hub of activity here, besides providing great service to this part of the community, which has been left out for a little while. It has, and we bought this land back in 2007. It took us some time, and the budget, of course, to build this station. It's supposed to be a regional station, so I think your point's well taken that it'll be an expanded service area. Yes. Hamburg, obviously, is a big part of that. This is right there. It's right in the front door, literally. And I think our folks in the administration are doing a good job in budgeting this, get this on the books so that we can finally open it up here in a couple months, I hope. Well, and, you know, let's not give short shrift to the antiquity that the current Station 2 is. I mean, it's the old county station that had county offices and the jail in it. I mean, it had everything. That's right. Police and fire in the old county. So I think the men and women of fire will be tremendously pleased with this new station. And today we're going to give everyone a look at the new station, talk about how we got to this point, talk to our chiefs, let them tell you exactly what this new station will do. And hopefully we'll be here in a couple of months doing a grand opening. We'll be right back. And welcome back to Lex 4 in a extended minute. We are pleased to have joined us Assistant Fire Chief, Reese, who's going to talk a little bit about what this station means to the men and women of the fire department. Nice to meet you, sir. Welcome. Thank you. So this is kind of your first interview in this job or something? It is in this job, yes. Well, I'm glad for you. Yeah, congratulations, man. That's super. Thank you very much. So what was your previous post? What did you do? I was the 1st Platoon Shift Commander. And then now? And now I'm the Assistant Chief of Operations. Well, we're in the right spot with you, aren't we? I believe we found it out. Yes, sir. So this is sort of your baby you're going to see come to fruition over the next couple months. Yes, sir. So will the same crew come over here? They will. Is this in tune now? They will. What we'll bring to this station will be an engine, a ladder, an EC unit, and a district major. There'll be 13 people on each platoon. Okay. Total, we're looking at 39 people across the three platoons housed here. 24-7? 24-7, 365. Now this bay we're standing looks a little bit bigger than just three apparatus. So how many can this really hold? It is. It can hold, depending on the apparatus length, we can get approximately six apparatus in here. We have a fleet of reserve apparatus that we need places to put those and this will serve as that. The extra spaces will be from the reserve apparatus. Well that would be great. It would be awesome. So that will stop them from weathering? Are you in a better position to use? It does both. It gets them in out of the weather. now our fleet's sitting in the weather okay deteriorating in the rain in the summer sure winter heat and everything it stays in here they can keep a closer eye on it it's locked security inside the station so it security and keeps them in better shape ready to respond then will you keep anything outside or just everything being here we have some outside stuff that may get brought here some trailers that we have auxiliary support stuff in they may get locked in the back parking lot and trailers well that'll make headquarters a little bit it will easier to Our headquarters is... You can turn an ordinary picture into a priceless work of art. It's what you can do if you've got love in your heart. guitar solo picture into their priceless work of art. It's what you can do if you've got love in your heart. It's what you can do if you've got love in your heart. If you've got love You can move a mountain Further down the line If you've got love You can do it all at once Or one rock at a time If you've got love You can turn a picture Into the Christ's work of art What you can do if you've got lots of love in your heart If you've got lots of love in your heart When the sun goes down On my side of town That lonesome feeling Comes to my door And the whole world turns Blue There's a run-down bar Across the railroad track I got a table for two Way in the back Where I sit alone I think of losing you I spend most every night Beneath the light of a neon moon Now if you lose your one and only There's always room here for the lonely Don't watch your broken dreams dancing out of the beams of a neon moon. I think the two young lovers are running wild and free. I close my eyes and sometimes see you in the shadows. This smoke will run. No telling how many tears I've sat here and cried Or how many lies that I've lied Telling my poor heart She'll come back someday Oh, but I'll be all right As long as there's light from a neon moon Oh, if you lose your one and only There's always room here for the lonely So watch your broken dreams dancing out of the dreams of a neon moon The jukebox plays on, drink by drink And the words of every sad song seem to say what I think And it's heard inside of me Ain't never gonna end Oh, but I'll be alright As long as there's light from a neon moon Oh, if you lose your one and only There's always room here for the lonely Don't watch your broken dreams dance Sending out of the veins of a neon moon Watch your broken dreams dance Sending out of the beams of a neon moon Watch your broken dreams dance Sending out of the beams of a neon moon Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ ¶¶ THE END Good afternoon. People in the audience, as well as my commission members, thank you. We would like to call to order the Urban County Planning Commission's meeting for March 9, 2017. We'll go immediately to the approval of the minutes. Any additions or deletions? Any additional corrections? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes as circulated. Mr. Chair, move approval of February 9, 2017 minutes. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. Second by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve the minutes of February 9, 2017. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Postponements or withdrawals. Good afternoon. I'm Rich Murphy with Abby Jones Consulting. I wanted to call your attention to the first page item under final subdivision plans 1A. It's PLN MJ sub 1702. On behalf of the client, we'd like to ask for a 30-day postponement on it. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this item agenda? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion for postponement for 30 days. The date on that is March? It's April 13th, Mr. Chairman. April 13th. April 13th. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move that for postponement of PLN MJSUB 17 Quad 02 Lexington Mall until April 13th. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLN MJSUB 17-2 Lexington Mall until April 13th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing and seeing none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. See you in a month. One more. Oh, I'm sorry. Once again, Rich Murphy. This one will be on page 5 under number 2 development plans. It's the development plan associated with the previous property. It's the PLN MJDP 17 Quad 06. We'd also like a 30-day postponement on it as well. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Okay. Anyone on the commission? If not, we've got a motion on the floor. Ms. Karen Mundy has made a motion. Ms. Mundy? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move for PLN MJDP 17 Quad 06 Lexington Mall postponed again for one month to April 13th. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLNMJDP 17-6 Lexington Mall until April 13th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing saying none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Chairman? Staff has an item to bring to the Commission's attention. Okay. On page 5 of your agenda, item L, this is Major Subdivision Plan 17-13, Covey Ridge Development, Company Lot 1, amended. We have received a written request for a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? If not, I need a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move for a one-month postponement for PLN MJSUB 1713. And Mr. Sally, is that still April 13th? It is April 13th. Yes, sir. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Mr. Mike Cravens, that we have a one-month or until April 13th postponement of PLN MJSUB 17-13, Covey Ridge Development Company, Incorporated. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? If not, we'll move on to the consent agenda items. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I'm very glad to tell you we have a number of items on your consent agenda this afternoon that may allow for you to approve these plans without discussion. The first is one of several final subdivision plans that has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. It appears on page 3, item D of your meeting agenda. This is Major Subdivision 17-05 for Denton Farms Incorporated, Unit 2, Lots 2 and 3. This plat involves property at 3925 Tatton Park. There is a finding that is required for this plat, and you should have at your place a white sheet that the staff has prepared entitled, Finding for Use of Access Easement. We would ask you to consider making this finding should the Commission approve this plat today. The next item on your consent agenda is on page 3, item F of your meeting agenda, Major Subdivision 17-07, Justice Farm, also Stephen Kay and Paul Gregory Justice property. This is a plat for property at 3376 Winchester Road. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 3, item G, Major Subdivision 17-08, Greendale Hill, Unit 2D. This is a plat for property at 2930 Spur Road. The next item on your agenda appears on page 4, item H. It's on your consent agenda, Major Subdivision 17-09, the Sebastian Property, Unit 2, Lot 146. This is an amended final record plat for property at 2967 Trailwood Lane. Once again, Mr. Chairman and Commission members, there is a finding necessary for your approval. of this plat is supplied on a white sheet of paper entitled Finding Related to Access Easement for this Plan. That's been provided, and we would ask you to consider adopting that finding if you were to approve this plan today. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. Page 4, item I, Major Subdivision 17-10, Tuscany, Unit 5A, a plat for 2625 Sir Barton Road, and 2151 Meeting Street. On page 4, item J of your agenda, we find Major Subdivision 17-11, Copper Creek Subdivision, a final record plat for property at 1850 Old Higby Mill Road. The final subdivision plan is the next item on the agenda, page 5, item K, Major Subdivision 17-12, the fairways at Andover, Unit 1D, a final record plat for property at 3435 McFarland Lane. In addition, there are three final development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 6 of your agenda, Item B, Major Development Plan 17-09, Plaza East, Lost 1 and 1A, also known as Neurofology Associates of Lexington. My apologies. An amended final development plan for property at 3280 and 3284 Eagle View Lane. The next item on your agenda also is on the consent agenda, page 6, item C, major development plan 17-12 for Town Branch Industrial, also known as Mead Tractor for property at 404 Alexandria Drive. And then finally, on page 6, item D, we find Major Development Plan 17-13, Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 5, Lot 10, for Town Place Suites, an amended final development plan for property at 980 Midnight Pass. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Planning Commission can consider approval of these plans, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Commission, a member of the audience, or perhaps one of the applicants would ask that the plan be removed to allow it to have further discussion today at your meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience would like to discuss any of these items more fully? Anyone on the Commission? Mr. Chair, I'm going to move approval of the consent agenda and also approve the two findings. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Cravens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve the consent agenda with also approval of the notifying us of the findings for both the subdivision plans. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Thank you. We have had a request from the Fire Department to, we have them on the agenda near the end of the meeting, and they have requested that they'd like to be moved up at this time. According to parliamentary law, the chair cannot actually move an agenda item, but without objection, the Chair can exercise the option of allowing that to take place. So unless there is any objection, then we will move that item up to the next item on the agenda, if that's okay. Okay, seeing no objection, then you may come forward. I mean, first of all, who's the staff? Ms. Galt will present the staff report to the Commission on this item. You should have this report at your place, a brown sheet. It's PFR 2017-1. Well, while we're moving agenda items, without objection, if we could go to the approval for the bonds and credits. Mr. Cravens? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Move approval of the release and call of bonds. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Mr. Frank, well, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we release the call of bonds. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Thank you. Motion carries. Scott. Is it open? No. I'm not talking. Someone or sister. Go ahead and flip it. Flip the switch. It's on. Okay. Now it's time? Yes. Sorry about that. I am presenting the public facility review for a new fire station that's located near 2754 Magnolia Springs Drive. You can see that they have proposed a 12,800 square foot building. It's going to be facing Magnolia Springs Drive, Mabel Lane, Estrella, and then we have Citation Boulevard down here. If you see the overhead picture, it will show you that the nursing home is across the street. And they have a proposal for apartments to the south, and they have single-family residential above to the north. The next. Build the next one. With this picture here, we're showing where the new firehouse is located. This is going to be located north of Citation Boulevard between Georgetown and Lee's Town. This is a mile and a half radius around this proposed station, so that you can see that this is located within the new developing area that's been going on for like the last 20 years. out Masterson Station, Greendale Road, to Spur Road. The next one. The next sheet shows that this is a needed fire station for all the new development out in this area. The two existing fire stations that are relatively within a mile and a half radius, which are closer, are both located inside New Circle Road. One is off Finney, off of Georgetown, and the other one is off of Leastown Road, and those are both located inside the New Circle Road. As I said, this is a new firehouse, 12,800 square feet. They also show areas for proposals for an additional 2,500 square feet. This is going to be a two-story structure with a brick facade and cast stonework on the outside also. So after reviewing it with the goals for the comprehensive plan, this meets the requirements of what is needed as a public service to this area of our community. And we believe that this is an approvable item by meeting the goals that are outlined in the comprehensive plan. With that, if you all have any other questions. Any questions? Mr. Sherrod, expansionary, do you have any idea what those plans are? Why not? Not at this time. We don't know. It might be for additional office area or possibly beds for the men that work in the fire home. I don't know. It just says expansionary. I wasn't given any of that information. Okay. Any other questions? Any other questions? Did you say there's a nursing home straight across the street in front of this? Yes. Yes. We're going to have sirens going off right across the street from a nursing home. Well, I'll let the fire department explain how the sirens go off. You can see we approved this last year. I know we did, and I know the station's needed there. It just bothers me. I'm back to the foundry clanging in some of the ED property, I guess, across from a nursing home. and I keep thinking. That was a funeral home. Well, that's true, but, you know, and I know people are dying to go there, but when I'm really, you know, I mean, you're going to have, I don't know. Anyway, it bothers me. I was going to say, I think there's a certain, I think they come into a residential. This is just my understanding. When they come near residential areas, they kind of turn down the sirens, but I'm not sure. I can let the fire department explain that. Okay, we'll ask the fire department in just a minute. I think that's a legitimate issue here. Any other questions? Mr. Chairman, if I could also respond. The facility is actually an assisted living facility rather than a nursing home. I'm not sure if that makes any difference. Still, you will have elderly residents there. Mr. Sally, what's the difference? We're moving right along. Any other questions? Find the applicant. Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'm Charlie Schneider with Brandstetter Carroll. I'm here on behalf of the fire department in the city of Lexington, and we're seeking your approval on this plan today. Raise your mic up, please. Sorry. Okay, and would you please address the issue that Ms. Mundy just brought up in terms of the sirens and what have, notwithstanding that it's assisted living as a fire, whatever, okay. I'll let Chief Reese answer. Thank you. I'm Assistant Chief Reese with the fire department operations. When we get in residential subdivisions, unless there's a lot of people out on the street, we tend to let off the sirens. They're not going to come out of the bay with the sirens blaring as soon as they come out of the bay. More than likely when they hit citation is when they'll really start blowing the sirens, so they should be away from the other facility before they start blowing them. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Well, excuse me, while you're here, I don't know, maybe Schneider can. Expansion area? Expansion area is for a third bay in the plans. Eventually, as the city grows, we run out of base space. Okay. So we need a base space to hopefully we're hoping to put an EC unit in this station. Okay. But it's not needed now? It's not needed now? No, yes, sir, it is needed now. It is needed? Yes. Why not build it now? That's where my question is. We're working on that now, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions? Yeah, I do. Mr. Penn. Is, I assume this is a new fire station because of growth. We're not replacing a fire station. We're not shutting one down to open this one. This is totally new. No, sir. The latest number that I have seen, and I was looking at this before I come down here, and I've heard different figures, but the latest number I have seen was around 13,000 people in this Masterson Station area in that corridor out through there. That's as large or larger than a lot of our towns in the state of Kentucky. So you've basically got a town out there without a fire station within this radius. It's very needed for this population. Okay. I'm not doubting the need. I just wonder if it's a tradeoff. No, sir. Not at this time. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Anyone in the audience like to address this particular issue? Okay, if not, anyone out on the commission have any other ideas, thoughts? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'll move for approval of PFR 2017-1 Lexington Fire Station No. 24, noting the reasons, findings provided by staff. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owen, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson. We approve PFR 2017-1 Lexington Fire Station number 24 with the reasons as identified by staff. Any other questions or any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Thank you. Thank you. 17-3 Fuller et al. property and Meadowthorpe commercial business. We've seen this quite a little bit for they have just recently rezoned this back portion of the property. This is West Main Street. This is Meadowthorpe shopping area. I believe there's a gas station on either side of the corner. What they're doing is they're coming back in with a plat today to subdivide. This is combination of two lots and they're subdividing to create one lot here with these two lots. We talked about the access easements. There was a proposal to have an access easement that was going to straddle lots two and three and come back here to be able to have entrance into lot five and then they had an ACCSE has been coming back out on Lot 4. If you look at your blue sheet, you'll see that there's some revised conditions. They brought us in a revision. With that, the first seven conditions on the sheet are just typical sign-off conditions. You'll notice several of the conditions make reference to Lot 2. We ask that Lot 2 be added to this plan. because of the fact of that access easement being straddled across two and three. So we're asking for certification, owner certification. We're asking for the lot to be shown here. And we wanted to verify the dimensions of the access easement. When you look at the notes, they propose a 20-foot access easement, and actually they're showing 15. So we want to verify, make sure that we're getting what we need for waste management and the fire department. This plan was recommended at the committee meeting for a postponement because there were some concerns and issues with waste management and the fire department, and I believe traffic engineering. But my understanding is that the applicant has worked with these different divisions, and therefore they've come to a resolution for some of these items. And so that is why at this time the staff has recommended approval with this revision to the plan. And the applicant probably can give you a little more information or the fire and traffic can also probably explain a little more on what was discussed on these items in detail. Any other questions for Ms. Galt? Okay, thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon. Rich Murphy again. Yeah, we've worked with, we've done a lot of work over the last several weeks with the fire department and traffic. We actually had the traffic come out there with their ladder truck to do a test drive to verify that the truck would fit through the easement to access the back property. And they felt comfortable with, which they could speak for too, but they felt comfortable with the widths and everything that we had with that. And we've been working with traffic also to resolve that issue. It seems like we've gotten the agreements that we need with that. Okay. Thank you. Yes, we're going to hear from the fire department and make sure we are on the same page. I'm the second tier of the fire department. You met the first tier earlier. See, Ms. Mundy, I would have focused on the response time to that nursing home, assisted living, and the last plan instead of the sirens. This particular plan, we did meet Abby Jones out there on two different occasions with the engine and ladder truck, and we're confident we can make the turns. They are going to have to remove a couple parking spaces to be able to get the turning radius in, and they did work back on the property with the number of units and narrowing those down, so we're comfortable. Good. Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Penn. Don't run away, Mr. Fireman. Sir. Sir. On number 14, where it says resolve possible need for access easement on the rear of lot 5, can you address that to him, or is that going to be at the final development plan stage? We were going to go ahead and do away with that. I believe at the beginning phases there was going to be an emergency access. It's kind of landlocked the way the property is. So we established that we had good circulation in and out, so two points of access, but we're not requiring that. At the back? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Anyone in the audience like to address this issue? Okay, then we'll turn it over back to the commission. For a discussion and our motion. The only discussion I have is do we need to do away with 14? Oh, that's the staff that. Do you want to keep 14? I can't see what he's saying. He says yes, do away with it. We can do away with it. Okay, he said we can do away with number 14. Thank you. Okay. Any other? If that's the case, then I think we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN MJ SUB 17-3 Fuller et al. Property and Metathorpe Commercial Business Center, Unit 1, with the 13 conditions as put forth by staff, removing number 14. It's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we approve PLN MJSUB 17-3 Fuller & Al property at Metathor and Metathor Commercial Business Center Unit 1 as amended with the 13 conditions as identified by staff, removing number 14. Any other discussions on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. have MJSUB 16-23 Denton Farms Incorporated unit 1G block J we're going to move out Richmond Road 8th and Spoonishboro we're heading towards Denton Farm we have Richmond Road we have DeLong that will run parallel to Brannon Park and they're coming in and they're creating 14 lots and then they're reconfiguring the lotting of lots 4 through 7 right here that that run parallel to Brannon Park this is one of the conditions with the setback we had a lot of discussion about that setback at subdivision committee because we had the 71-foot building line here and then as we we talked about there was a 20-foot building line that had been recorded we were talking about the setback and there's a conditional zoning restriction that says that there shall be 325 foot building setback along the long road right of way so with the aerial that you can see up here you can see where the long road runs parallel to Brannon and those last couple lots right there lot four is open to the next to the green space and that has the 71 foot then the next lot this is where we were questioning and that's why I drew the property line and showed it extending towards the long road as you can see and that's That's where, when we said to discuss that setback, that's why we wanted to say it met the condition of the zoning, conditional zoning on the property. As you look at the conditions that we have, we have the typical sign-offs on the first seven. the plan that you're looking at up above is the minor development plan that was submitted to show the relotting of the lots, which can be done on the development plan. And that's why I copied this so that we can show exactly how those lots fit into the revisions of the development plan. We just had a couple other cleanup conditions. and as I said, that condition number 12 discussed building line and conditional zoning restrictions for lot number 5, and that was our big discussion, and we said that we were going to talk about it here. So I wanted to see if there's any other comments, questions that I could answer. I'll let committee, I have a question, but go ahead, Mr. Owens. Thank you. Cheryl, yeah, obviously there was quite a bit of discussion. And to clarify, we're just talking about the one lot, lot five, as far as it's setback? Correct, sir. That's the one that we had in discussion because on a previous plat, it had been recorded with a 20-foot building line. But John has shifted, or Mr. Barlow, has shifted these property lines, and so therefore this lot is facing more directly towards the long, and that is where the question came. I agree it was originally platted with a 20-foot building line because as you go around Brandon Park, the rest of Brandon Park has a 20-foot building line. But because of our conditional zoning, it required this to be set back. And that's the third lot in from the left? It's the second lot here. From the right? The second lot, okay. Yes. So the third lot in has a? It's a 20-foot building line that continues along. The first lot has a? 71-foot building line. Okay. Has there been any discussion since committee? I think that's the way we left it. Yes. The applicant had brought in a revision, which is the second sheet, I believe. This morning he brought in a proposal of where we had talked about there was some discussion about averaging the building line. And so he showed us this plan here shortly before the meeting. Okay. So I'll let you take a look at that. All right. Any other questions? Yes. So is that permissible? Permissible? Permittable is probably the word I'm looking for. Well, it's conditional zoning that was set forth, and that's why when you see the other plan, it shows that this property line, if you draw that straight forward, we believe that that lot is now facing to long. I got that, but is that, can he average to get that house on that lot? That's conditional zoning. I'm not sure if I'll let Bill answer that. I don't know if. I think what we have is an item that the commission is being asked to interpret. I think what Ms. Galt has shown you is here's the staff's, what prompted the original condition by the staff was our analysis of the setback and the lot orientations compared to DeLong Road because the conditional zoning restriction is written from DeLong Road. It doesn't reference any other properties. I think the applicant, I did not hear all the discussion last week at your subdivision committee, but my understanding what staffs relate to me is they have a different interpretation about that condition applying to the lot in question. They, after hearing the committee's discussion, have proposed this as either a compromise or an alternative to the discussion that you had last week. I think the staff, you know, we have outlined how we viewed it, but I think we're at a point now where the commission probably has to interpret one way or the other. You're saying it's up to us. Well, the conditional zoning doesn't talk about the setbacks from Brandon Park. It talks about a 325-foot building line from DeLong Road. And what either wasn't anticipated or wasn't reviewed closely is the fact that we have a street in between that also has a building line. So it truly is. The other. I'm not finished. I'm not finished. But my question is, because I know you can average, my question is, is that a permittable situation with him averaging over that line? The building, yes, can be averaged. It can penetrate the building line up to five feet, provided it meets the average of what the plaited building line would be. Right. So even though it's a conditional use, he can still average over the building line? Yes. That was my question. I'm sorry. Misunderstood the question. We've got some CNN people here. Mr. Penn. While we've got Mr. Salley speaking about this, is this a permittable or a Preston City? I don't believe it's precedent setting. I think it's such an isolated issue. I can't think of anywhere else in the entire expansion area where we have this situation of another street being located in an otherwise required building setback. I can't think of any. The reason I ask that question is I don't want to come back to bite us for some other lawyer down here trying to do the same thing. Certainly. Understandable. Okay. I don't know if Bill or Cheryl needs to answer this, but following up with what Frank was asking, what's on the other side of Branham Park directly across from these lots? Directly across from these lots on Branham Park? Yeah. Are the other lots going on around the corner? or is that just open space? As you can see, there's a common open space between DeLong Road and Brandon Park, and it goes the whole length of DeLong Road. Once DeLong Road makes that curve into the adjacent farm, that's where this street is being proposed to change direction, and we don't have that setback against the farm. It's just against the DeLong Road, the rural road, the rural scenic. And just following up, I was just wondering if the bottom side of Brandon Park was going to be lotted off eventually. Oh, it is already lotted off. It's lotted off, and there are several homes all the way down Brandon Park. Now he's gone further into the subdivision with this. this is kind of like at his edge where he's moving forwards both sides of Brandon Park well once it makes this curve then they can do lots on either side okay see up here yeah I was just asking like directly across across here no it's open space it's all and it won't be lotted off no sir no it'll never be a lot of it's a conditional zoning that it stays that way okay thank you Well, the plat that Mr. Barlow proposed. Okay, I can read it now, I couldn't read it before. It says 35 foot set back right on lot five, is that right? Yes. I left my hair a bit. Oh. 35, okay. Okay, if not, we'll bring the applicant. applicant applicant yeah I'm sorry can't hear that Kenny my name is John Barlow and I'm the owner of the long estates development and I first time I've ever amicably disagreed with staff I admire them and respect them but there's some other, I think, vital aspects. This was probably the, and correct me, Bill, probably the longest zoning meeting in Fayette County history. It started off at 6 p.m., and I walked out at 5.30 a.m. There was an agreement written, I think, at 4 o'clock a.m. where the richmore road crowd the long road crowd opposition and applicant agreed it was probably written in about 45 minutes i think i had to wake darby up a couple times but we got to it we had the final development plan in march of 2004 and spent a lot of time with Richmond Road Neighborhood Association, along all parties, and there were multiple agreements and compromises. There was supposed to be a second entrance off of Ellerslie Subdivision on Old Richmond Road, which was required by ordinance. Planning commission did not require that. The special design area of 60% open space, that line was moved. The lots on Branham that face the Long Road, all those building lines were looked at. It was a grand compromise 13 years ago. and the final plat was recorded with this lot being 71 feet and this lot being 20. Now, I have moved this line. This line was originally here about 8 feet. I moved it back over this way, 8 feet. so when they talk about conditional zoning you know that's you know do we need to put the second entrance back in I mean where do you start re-unraveling everything that's been in place for 13 years everybody's happy and I think Bill you made a great point this would not set a precedence because there's probably not a requirement that's ever been like this in place. So with the other exhibit I think Bill had, we have carefully placed the houses on the lots. The houses are very consistent with what's on Weston Park. I guess if I need to move that line back here, back eight feet, to keep the final plat that's in the record intact, I don't mind doing that. But I just, everybody's happy, so I don't see where, and if we don't set up a precedent in the future, as Frank said, I hope you all would approve the plat with this layout. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this agenda item? If not, let's go back to the commission then for discussion and later a motion. Anyone? Discussion? Discussion? Yeah. Yeah. Particularly since Ms. Mundy nailed Bill Sally down on the one question. personally I feel like this what Mr. Burlow is presenting is a good compromise is a good compromise in the fact that quite frankly with lot 5 I don't think it would be good to have a house sitting back at 70 feet in front of the neighboring house personally I think the averaging is a good compromise how you want to word condition number 12, I'm not for sure. But unless it's just simply with number 12 approval of Mr. Barlow's compromise, yes. Okay, thank you. Without anything else, how would we handle number 12? Do we have any suggestions as to wording for that particular condition? Well, the commission certainly has had the discussion. If you wish to revise the building line on lot 5, you could just state the dimension, and that could either be the 35 feet that Mr. Barlow has proposed or the 71 that the staff has suggested would meet the conditional zone. I think you'd have that choice in setting that for lot five. Well, I think the question is is there any disagreement with the compromise that's been proposed? In fact, we're in the discussion phase on number 12, so if there's any serious issues or anything connected, now's the time. If everybody's in agreement with number 12, then we can then move on. Yes, Ms. Mundy. Yes. Well, I guess my question is, are we in agreement with number 12 or are we in agreement with number 12 with the provision that he can do that I think it's a 35 foot instead of the 71? So, I mean, he is proposing to do, which I think is a nice look that kind of staggered and it's at 35 foot rather than causing him to be pushed all the way back to 71 feet on that lot. You know, if he's going to stick with what he's showing us, which I certainly would think he will, then, you know, I'm good with that building line being a 35-foot setback. If that's the case, then I guess what I would recommend revising 12 to simply say revise building line and conditional zoning restrictions for lot 5 to 35 feet instead of 71. Ask staff if that meets. Does that meet? 35, yes. Yeah. That would require this geometry. I have a suggestion. Yes. I don't particularly think that the language that the Planning Commission is revising the conditional zoning restriction is a good idea, because you can't do that. Okay. So that was imposed by the Urban County Council, and so only they can change conditional zoning restrictions. As you might remember, we did that on the Kimball House Square thing on Limestone. It was all about the conditional zoning restrictions. What I heard, and Bill might be able to enlighten this a little better, was that by using averaging, which is permissible under your zoning ordinance, that you could meet the conditional zoning restriction that was imposed by the council. So if that's what was being said, then that might be a better way to put it than to say you're revising the conditional zoning restriction because that could raise some red flags because you really shouldn't do that. So, Tracy, what you're saying is that we need to worry that using averages, it meets the conditional zoning. Yes. Okay, so in other words, we would simply say for number 12 that we would revise it to say by averaging, we approve of the averaging to meet the conditional zoning restrictions. Okay, and that would be okay? As long as the averaging works under our zoning ordinance, and I can't speak to that, but our staff can. If I could address that, the averaging allowable under the zoning ordinance is on a per lot basis with each building line. I think what has been talked about here is whether or not this staggered approach meets the intent of the conditional zoning restriction, because I think that's what the commission wants to accomplish, and it's just which setback does that best. So the averaging provision is not really applicable to any of these four lots on the screen because none of the buildings are across private building lines. I hope I'm explaining the difference in those two things. The normal averaging provisions under the zoning ordinance are not being applied or tested for any of the setbacks you're looking at here. You're evaluating does the setback on lot five meet the intent of the existing conditional zoning restriction or not. Now I am confused. So, Tracy, would you help us with the language then for number 12, based on the fact that we would like to approve the compromise by averaging or using that wording as such? I think based on what Bill just said, you're going to have to say, and he can correct me if I use the wrong technical term here, that based on this revised plan that you're looking at, that the – what word did you use? No, in regard to where the buildings are located on each lot, Was it the staggering of the building location on the lot meets the intent of the conditional zoning restriction? That's correct. I think you should include that in your motion. Anyone get that down? Yeah. Okay. Then we'll, Will, as well, okay, then, if that's the case, then we're ready for a motion, I think as long as we're including the words that you've indicated we should. Okay. And listen, please listen carefully to make sure we get this right. Okay, Will. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of PLNMJSUB 16-23 with the 12 conditions. changing number 12 to state revised building line, so staggering the building line in order to meet the intent of the conditional zoning. Is that good? Let's put O'Block in there. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Will Berkeley and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve PLN MJSUB 16-23 Denton Farms Incorporated, Units 1 through G, Block J, Lots 4 and 5, and Track 2, Units 4C and 4D, Lock 4 has amended with the 11 conditions noted by staff, changing number 12 to suggest that we would revise the planned staggering the building line to meet the conditions of the zoning restrictions. That would be in accordance with Mr. Barlow's proposed plan. Okay. Does everyone understand the motions? Mr. Chair, with what he just said in accordance with the revised plan, that Mr. Barlow, so that sets it at a definite spot. So, yeah, I'm okay with that. Any other comments? Are you ready to vote? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion carries. Thank you. interest in peace you're right I'm gonna let them clean that up Thank you. members of the commission we are moving right on down your agenda on page three item e it is major subdivision plan 17-6 turfland mall and this is a final record plat to create some additional lots on turfland mall property you can see here is harrodsburg road frontage this is the uk medical office that was constructed in this location. You have the series of restaurants, the steak, the barbecue place, the vacant building here at this time. O'Charlie's is here. And they've created several lots. The most recent, I believe, that this body saw was the creation of this lot and a little medical building that's going to locate here. They are lotting off most of the rest of the property. Of course, Home Depot's here. This is subject to a development plan that you've seen that shows development up through here in a large office building. This is the Staples location. You've got the bank. And, as I said, UK, this is an out lot that shows a fast food restaurant that was approved on the last development plan by this body. They are very simply, again, creating these lots on the Turflin Mall property. the reason you have it before you today and it's not on the consent agenda is there is a waiver request and you all have approved this waiver this particular waiver at least twice before and i know you all are aware of it there is as you know an old private sewer line that runs through turf was built when the property was first developed uh our sanitary sewer people made it very clear several years ago, they won't touch it. That's right. And, however, in order for these lots to be created, it is necessary to have a waiver that addresses the public sewer requirement on these properties. So you're seeing the very same thing before you today. And staff is, of course, recommending approval of that waiver consistent with your past actions on this property. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. I've got one. Okay, Mr. Penn. I think this is the gift that keeps on giving. How many of these lots can we continue to put the waiver on and still keep the integrity of the private sewer line? I know he's going to say it's got plenty of capacity, and I'm not arguing the capacity. I'm just saying if the city doesn't want to touch this lot, this sewer line, and they've made it very clear they don't, and we keep putting lots that put more into that sewer line, And my question to you is how long do we keep doing this and still be responsible for this development plan? And I'm going to ask Roy the same question, but I want to ask staff that question. Yes, sir. That's a very good question, and I think perhaps one way that that would be addressed is before you would approve subsequent waivers is that you ask for an evaluation of that sewer line, and they could certainly do that the same way we evaluate all our lines. run a camera down through there, address the condition of that line. Obviously, our sanitary sewer water quality staff are worried enough about it that they didn't want the city to be responsible for it. So that's an excellent question, Mr. Penn, and I believe you could ask for such an evaluation if you wanted to. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Mundy. Thank you, sir. So our water quality department doesn't want it. Have they not tested it? Have they not put a camera in it and looked at it before they said no? It's a private line. I don't believe they have. No. I don't believe they have. No. I think because of age and the known circumstances, the history. It was intended to be dedicated at one time, and for some reason that didn't happen. And I can't address why that is, but there was a plat at one time. The intent was dedicated, and it was not done. So they are aware of the age and the nature of the pipe and that sort of thing. So they, I mean, there was no hesitation on their part to say we don't want this line. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. The applicant? Thank you. So it's an item that's been around for a long time and not a clue as to what the fix is. If the city doesn't want it, eventually everyone will get in there, they'll use it. Owner will have to fix it if something goes wrong. It's not on the city's dime at this point. It's clearly marked as private. Mr. Penn. You know, that all sounds good, Rory, but my concern is you're selling these lots off. You're not leasing these 99-year leases. So as soon as the owner of the property sells the last lot, he's done. So my question to you is, if that line continues to be added on to it, and we can count four or five lots there, say there's four or five more that go there, the developer taps out, he sold his last lot, he or she's gone, and this thing has a problem. Have each one of those owners signed something that they're responsible for that line, or is it just going to be a mess that nobody can fix? I don't know what's in the purchase agreements, private agreements that run through that. All of these properties are clearly shown to have cross-reciprocal and parking access. There's shared easement rights throughout all the area. But I just don't know typically what gets written into those types of agreements where you move in. My purpose for doing this today is get it on the record. It's my purpose for doing this that we made the decision based on the fact we know that that line at some point's got a problem. and so I don't want to pass anything here and vote on it. At least I haven't recognized the fact that I don't know about capacity, but age has a tendency, regardless of capacity, to take care of a lion. So that's all I need to say about that. Thank you. Anyone else want to get on the record? Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone like to speak to this agenda item in the audience? Okay, back to the commission. I think we've got the plan and the waiver on this. We need a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move approval of the plan MJSUB 1706 Turfland Mall Outlots and also approving the waiver. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve MPLN MJSUB 17-6 Turfland Mall Outlots, including the waiver. Can I speak to you? Yes, any other discussions? Now is the time. Yes, sir. I'm going to vote against this just because I think we should have conditioned it that that line be cammered. So I'll be voting against this for that reason. Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens, on your monitors. Vote passed as six to three. Thank you. I wouldn't need to pay for that, too. No problem. It's on the record now that everybody tries to screw everybody and all that. That's part of it. Well, it's set our responsibility when you have inadequate service. I would serve it. It's like in this shopping center. Get on the street. I'm getting ready to say, where are we on this thing? Oh, yeah. Another waiver. Maybe it is. Maybe it is. I know that we look at it, but it's our response to being back in the box to page. We should have looked at it. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are looking at page 7, item E. This is MJDP 17-16. This is the Lucille Caudill Little property, which is located at 2440 Mackenwood Drive. And this is a proposed self storage center. This plan did receive revisions submitted to us. These revisions were submitted past the approved filing deadline. The revision should be shown on the overhead shortly. So this property is located outside of New Circle Road. It's at the end of a cul-de-sac and surrounded by multiple industrial properties. There is a two-story office dwelling unit located on the property. The dwelling unit is strictly for night watchmen, so 24-hour surveillance. Towards the rear, you'll have landscape easement, 50-foot building line, which leads north into Old Frankfurt Pike. To the rear, you have Alexandria Drive. So there are 19 total conditions for this property, 10 of them being your standard sign offs. Eight of them are your typical clean up items. Clean up items such as denote gate on plan and denote record plat designation. The final item however is in regards to on site detention. So years ago offsite detention basins existed for this property. It would have served the applicant's property sufficiently. When the state came in to complete Old Frankfort Pike, they removed the offsite detention basin. There is in its place a 54-inch arch culvert, which extends underneath Old Frankfurt Pike. This was built to accommodate stormwater. The above plan should show that. It will show the 54-inch culvert as well as the 48-inch culvert, which crosses Alexandria. There's been a great deal of research by your division of engineering, division of planning, and the applicant. The key to this resolution is the capacity of the conveyance system. Steph does feel this is resolvable, and as such we can move forward with approval recommendation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you guys may have. Any questions? Thank you. Applicant? Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy representing the owner. Kevin Phillips is with me here today as well. And staff gave an accurate description of what's going on here. There was originally off-site detention provided at the corner of Alexandria and Old Frankfort Pike. The state came in and did the roundabout. This property was given to them. A lot of the property owners gave the land for the roundabout, and the state converted it from a detention basin into a basin which flows out into the stream. This is a picture of the culvert underneath there. It's done aesthetically very nicely, like everything in the roundabout is. For comparison purposes, if you look up in the upper right corner, you can see a minivan on old Frankfurt Pike on the upper right corner. Compare that in size to the headwall and the pipe, and you can see this is a pretty large structure there. The staff I know wanted to confirm that that is properly sized to take the water from this property. And the hang up has been getting those numbers from the state. I know that your division of engineering is checking on those and our engineers are too. And the state's trying to find those numbers for us. So we feel confident that this basin can handle the water. It's a big basin. It has a lot of capacity. But we know staff wants to confirm that, so I think staff had proposed that 19 be changed to resolve the need for on-site detention on there, and we're fine with that. The rest of the cleanup changes had been made. You may have noted at the subdivision committee there was an issue of the distance between the buildings. That has been widened to meet the standards of the fire department on there. I just wanted to point that out to you on that. So we're agreeable with the staff recommendation, and I think the staff was agreeable with 19 reading, resolve the need for on-site detention. Any questions? Anyone in the audience wants to address this agenda item? Okay, back to the commission for discussion and our motion. Mr. Chair, real quick, Mr. Murphy's offering a change to number 19. How does the staff feel about that? Staff is fine with that change. So there are recommendations for approval now? If that's the case, if that's what you like. Yes. Only we changed number 19 to resolve. Yeah, I've got that. Okay. Changing that 1.19 then would go to resolve these for on-site detention. Any ready for a motion? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 17-16, Lucille Cottle, Little Property, with now the 19 conditions changing number 19 to resolve the need for on-site detention. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owen, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we approve PLNMJDP 17-16 Lucille Cottle Little Property Unit 1B Lot 5 with the 19 conditions provided by staff, changing number 19 to resolve these for on-site detention. Any other questions on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next item is at the bottom of page 7 of your agenda. Minor Subdivision Plan, Minor Subdivision 16-58, Fairlawn and W.J. Hayden Subdivision. This plat involves four addresses, 1217, 1313, and 1317 North Limestone, and also 100 Withers Avenue. I would ask the Commission if you believe in deja vu, because we have discussed this plat at your last two meetings. And we have provided for you a supplemental staff report for a minor subdivision plan, and I cannot ever recall those words being spoken at a Planning Commission meeting before. This plat we have talked about the last two months is for an existing church on North Limestone at 1313 between Withers Avenue and Paris Avenue. And this consolidation plat proposed to join three other lots into the main body of the church lot. An R3 lot where there is a parking lot. A lot to the north that, pardon me, to the south that is occupied by a single family dwelling and garage. and a vacant parcel. The lots on either side are in a different zoning category. Most of the property is R3. These two lots are R1C, single-family residential. The staff had recommended disapproval the past two meetings of including this lot in the application because of the inability of the church to sell that property should a conditional use permit not be approved for that. The applicant, the church, has since filed with the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use permit, and they were on the February agenda of the board. However, the board postponed consideration of their conditional use permit at that meeting to their late March meeting. However, at your last Planning Commission meeting, the idea was broached of a conditional approval of this plat that might offer the possibility of the Board of Adjustment approval or denial of the use of this property with the rest of the church property. And so that's the purpose of the supplemental staff report. You'll see at the bottom of that report, the staff is recommending approval today of this plat, changing two of the five conditions that were associated with our partial approval recommendation previously. Number three is the most significant. Previously, the staff had recommended that you remove Lot 1 from this consolidation plat through your approval action. You'll see now that that is now tempered with the added phrase, if the lot at 1217 North Limestone is not approved for a conditional use permit by the Board of Adjustment. So now the applicant has the ability to proceed with this plat should that lot be approved, and we would expect that lot to be removed should it not be approved by the Board of Adjustment. There's no further need then for this plat to come back for a fourth time on your meeting agenda or to offer any more uncertainty to the applicant. There's a slight revision necessary for the fourth condition that's exactly related to the change in the third. But this is now an approvable plat with that idea that was discussed at your last meeting with these five revised conditions. I'd be glad to answer any questions the Commission may have. It seems like we have talked about this plaque quite a bit. You may not wish to do so any further. Any questions for Mr. Sally? Yes, Mr. Owens. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. I just turned my microphone off and still on. I've got to ask a question. It went to the Board of Adjustment and they postponed it. Did they hear it and then postpone it, or did they not hear it at all? Mr. Owens, I did not attend the meeting. and I was monitoring it in my office, but I had an office visitor at that time. All I saw was the action. I did not see the prior dialogue, so honestly, I do not know the answer. No minutes from it? I don't believe they're completed yet. Okay. I don't know why you wouldn't wait until you get it. That's what we did last time. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Sally? Okay, applicant? Is the applicant here? The gentlemen that were here last month and the month prior are not here today. I'm not sure if anyone else is here representing the church. Oh, okay. So then in review, just hang on. I guess the thing about it is we indicated that primarily most of this that they had to take care of was on the technical side, But one of the things that we couldn't do is to hear it until the Board of Adjustments heard it. And their position was at that time that they were more than happy because everyone seemed to feel that this would be a good thing, but it was just the way the timing was set up as such on this. So with that, we kind of put it on a continuance basis, or was it a postponement? I've forgotten how we – I think we eventually postponed it as such with the understanding that they would get before the Board of Adjustments. So they have been before the Board of Adjustments, but we don't know what they said, except for the fact that they did postpone a part of this discussion until the end of March. Is that correct? Yes, sir. So what the staff now has set us up with is a possibility of going ahead if we wanted to with it or allowing them to go ahead with it, but with the condition that they do get the approval of the Board of Adjustments. Is that fair to say? Yes, sir. It is. So that's where we are today. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Carolyn Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I move approval with the five conditions from the staff for PLNMN SUB 1658 Fairlong and W.J. Hayden subdivision. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we approve PLN, NSUB 16-58 Fairline, and W.J. Hayden subdivision with the five conditions as noted by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Yes, ma'am. I just would like to say I'm going to vote against this because I don't feel they did what we asked them to do. We asked them to go to the Board of Adjustments. I know they put it off, but they're bringing it back to us. They didn't wait on the answer from the Board of Adjustments. So I will be voting against this. Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion passes 6 to 3. We've got commission items now. Mr. Salley. Mr. Chairman, the next item on your agenda is the very top of page 8, SRA 2017-1, a proposed amendment to Article 6 of your land subdivision regulations. This is a text amendment that's been initiated by the Urban County Council last month. and it proposes to add a new section to Article 6-8L of your subdivision regulations that would require a developer to install a permanent sign denoting the end of a public street right-of-way at every location where that public street meets a private street or otherwise abuts a public street. The language appears on your agenda and also in our staff report, which should be at your place. This report was reviewed by your subdivision committee at their meeting last week. The council passed a resolution initiating this change and has sent it forward to the planning commission. And as the commission knows, especially those of you on the subdivision committee, it's not uncommon where we have these facilities meet, a public street and a private street or an access easement. A common discussion in those plans is how that location where they meet will be demarcated. And a common thing that's often discussed is perhaps in a parking lot or on an access easement, some type of concrete treatment, a strip or a sidewalk, a crosswalk, things that can help identify in the field where public and private streets meet. At a street intersection, it's not quite as critical because signage can accomplish that same thing. And as you drive around town, you will note some street signs are marked private PVT code on the street signs indicating that they're not part of the public street system. The last time the staff checked several years ago, about 8% of our streets are private streets. That is not by mileage. That's just by looking at a listing of names of the streets. And then obviously you would expect private streets generally are probably shorter than a lot of our public streets and certainly our highways and collector streets. There are three primary services that the government offers where this issue is very important. One is in the area of snow removal. The other is in the area of filling potholes, especially this time of year when the weather warms from the winter. And the third is in the area of repaving. And I think what the Council intended with this was to help the public identify where the public is responsible for those services and where the local government is not responsible. Ordinarily, where you have a private street, you have a homeowners association or some other entity that takes on the role of those services. and they have financial arrangements with the property owners served by those facilities to account for their perpetual maintenance and care. This is an important bit of information to provide the general public, especially for folks that are unaware of whether they live on a public or private street, to help them be able to identify the responsible parties for these important services. For that reason, the staff has recommended approval of this new section to your land subdivision regulations for the two reasons that are on your agenda and in our staff report. To briefly summarize, the first is that the proposed text allows the public to make better informed decisions in contacting the correct parties about maintaining public and private streets. And then secondly, the proposed addition to the subdivision regulations will promote improvements in the maintenance of our public streets, which is clearly within the intent of the land subdivision regulations. At this point, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission. I should report that your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this text amendment to the full Commission. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Mr. Salley, I don't see any regulation here about the type of sign, what it's made out of, size, where it goes. I mean, you could put it in a sight line if you weren't careful. If you weren't careful. So, I mean, I don't want to get it too complicated. Maybe everybody wants the flexibility to make their own kind of sign, but was there any discussion on that? I'm not aware of any discussion by the Council as to a standard prototype. That may be discussed with our Division of Traffic Engineering. Certainly, if these types of signs are going to be erected by the local government, I would expect them to all look the same. But this responsibility is for the developer. It's much like the street signs as well in a newly developing subdivision. Okay, so they could put any kind of sign they wanted there? There might, if it's in the public street right-of-way, there may be some issues, but if it's in the private street right-of-way, it would be up to that owner, probably as to the dimensions and scale, appearance of the sign. Because there might be, I know some of those entrance signs say private street under them. Does that work? Does it have to be another sign? I'm not sure that type of sign would comply. with this new provision. I think this is intended to mark very close to the point where that transition between public and private takes place. I guess what I'm saying by creating this ordinance, I mean, there's a lot of things as a developer, you don't know, I mean, can you just paint one on a piece of plywood and nail out there or what? I mean, it's, you know, it doesn't say, I mean, I think if you wanted the public to know, maybe all those signs ought to be just alike, that when you're driving around and you see them, You recognize that sign, isn't it? Mr. Cravens, I believe the last sentence of the text protects us from that. That tells us that traffic engineering has to approve the materials and the sign and that sort of thing. So I believe this will be a standard sign according to the text of the change. They just have to approve it. I'm sorry? Well, you're saying that traffic engineering has to approve the sign, right? Yes, they would approve the sign. So you've got to do a drawing and all this stuff? No, I believe, I would expect traffic engineering would have a standard sign that they'd make available to the private sector, to the developer to use. Because it could very well be that the government is asked to post some of these signs on existing developments, too. All right, but the developers are only responsible for developments after this ordinance clears, right? That's correct. And for new developments as well. They wouldn't be asked to go back and do something in the past. Anything in the pipeline, no. Well, I think any potential plat development that has yet not platted may be subject to this ordinance, but developments that have already platted in that stage beyond this, I'm not sure how this could be enforced. Any other questions? Traffic has anything to say about this? My intention is to try to make it clear. Let's hope I do that. Traffic has a manual on uniform traffic control devices, and it's more or less a book that says your signs have to look like this, the lettering has to be this height. So it's going to be pretty mandated. what that sign has to look like. Even if it's on private property, although it wouldn't be the city's responsibility, we would advise this is how it should look. And so they should all be uniform, and we'll have a template more or less like here. This is what you have to do. Go purchase the sign and have it installed. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, if not, we'll turn it over to the Commission for a motion. Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, move approval of SRA 2017-1, amendment to Article 681, private streets, with the two conditions recommended by staff as findings. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. Seconded by Mr. Frank Penn that we approve SRA 2017-1 Amendment to Article 6 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. Nope. Yeah. Regulations with the conditions, the two conditions as identified by staff as findings. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay. Motion carries. Nope. Well, motion does carry, but we'll see what happens. Anything from the staff? Especially, can you give us a review of what we might face next week? I think next week is our work session. Yes, sir. Yes, I'd be happy to. In fact, we've got two things next week. we want to remind you all of the On the Table event, which is on Wednesday, all day, throughout the day, Wednesday, March 15th. And that will be the final public input phase of the goals and objectives. We had our meetings in February where we went out into the community, and then the On the Table event will help us wrap that up. And we believe there will be several thousand people across the community participating in that. And if you want to check out more about that, it's on the ImagineLexington.com website. You can check there, and there's more information about that if any of you all want to attend one of those on-the-table sessions or just want more information. And you can also check with us. We'll be happy to provide that. So that's on Wednesday. And then on Thursday, we'll have the work session, and we'll be in chambers. And we expect to have two presentations for you at that time, one of them the housing market study that we've been working on for the past few months, as well as the green space survey. So we'll have both of those for you to present next Thursday. And then we have some regular housekeeping things to do as well, a couple of other ZOTAs to talk about that day. So we have a full meeting next Thursday and hope you all will be available to attend. Thank you. Anyone have anything from the Commission that they would like to state? If not, then without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.