# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - April 13, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 13, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4225 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4225?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-04-13 - **Last revised**: April 13, 2017 - **Length**: 25,747 words - **Speakers**: Chad > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution 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 April 13, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Bill Wilson presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, including development proposals for The Greathouse Property (The Village at Great Acres), Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus), Boone Creek Outdoors, and Taylormade Real Estate, LLC. The meeting resulted in mixed outcomes for the development proposals under consideration. Two items were approved by the commission: Boone Creek Outdoors and Taylormade Real Estate, LLC. However, The Greathouse Property (The Village at Great Acres) amendment was withdrawn, while the Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) amendment #21 was postponed for future consideration. Throughout the proceedings, the commission conducted five motions and votes to address the various agenda items and procedural matters. The meeting also included input from the public, with two public comments heard during the session, allowing community members to voice their perspectives on the development proposals before the commission. ## Attendance The following members were present at the April 13, 2017 meeting: • Bill Wilson • Carolyn Richardson • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Joseph Smith • Will Berkley • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • David Drake • Mike Cravens **Absent:** Patrick Brewer **Late arrivals:** None Ten members were present for the meeting, with one member absent. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on five items during the meeting, with most receiving unanimous approval. **PLN-MJSUB-17-00023: The Greathouse Property (The Village at Great Acres) (AMD)** [timestamp: 02:00] Mike Owens motioned to withdraw the application, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The withdrawal was approved unanimously with all 10 commissioners voting in favor: Bill Wilson, Carolyn Richardson, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, Will Berkley, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, David Drake, and Mike Cravens. **PLN-MJDP-17-00006: Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) (AMD #21)** [timestamp: 05:00] Frank Penn motioned to postpone the item, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The postponement to the May 11, 2017 meeting was approved unanimously 10-0 with the same commissioners voting in favor. **PLN-MJSUB-17-00013: Covey Ridge Development Co. (Lot 1) (AMD)** [timestamp: 10:00] Karen Mundy motioned for approval, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The application was approved unanimously 10-0 with 13 conditions attached. **PLN-MJDP-17-00025: Boone Creek Outdoors** [timestamp: 45:00] Mike Owens motioned for approval, seconded by David Drake. The application passed 9-1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor were Bill Wilson, Carolyn Richardson, Karen Mundy, Joseph Smith, Will Berkley, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, David Drake, and Mike Cravens. Carolyn Plumlee cast the sole dissenting vote. Approval included conditions prohibiting the trailering of horses. **PLN-MAR-17-00006: Taylormade Real Estate, LLC** [timestamp: 120:00] Will Berkley motioned for approval, seconded by Karen Mundy. The application passed 9-1 on a roll call vote with the same voting pattern as the previous item - Carolyn Plumlee again voting against while the other nine commissioners voted in favor. The approval included a conditional zoning restriction. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the board during the public comment period of the April 13, 2017 meeting. **Alex Martin** spoke regarding Boone Creek Outdoors [timestamp: 40:00]. Martin expressed concerns about platforms located on Mr. Park's property and the potential for these structures to be reconnected in the future. Martin emphasized the importance of establishing clear boundaries and ensuring safety measures are in place related to these platforms. **Kevin Kidd** addressed traffic concerns related to the Taylormade Real Estate, LLC project [timestamp: 130:00]. Kidd raised specific concerns about increased traffic flow that would result from the development, particularly the impact on Cornwall Drive. He highlighted the lack of sidewalks in the area as a safety concern for children in the neighborhood, noting that the additional traffic from the proposed project could create hazardous conditions for pedestrians. Both speakers focused on safety-related issues affecting their community, with Martin addressing property boundary and structural safety concerns, while Kidd emphasized pedestrian safety and traffic management issues related to new development. ## Contested Items Two significant issues generated substantial community opposition and heated debate during the April 13, 2017 meeting. **Boone Creek Outdoors Platform Removal** The most contentious discussion centered on platforms located on Mr. Park's property associated with Boone Creek Outdoors. Community members voiced strong concerns about these existing platforms and expressed particular worry about the potential for them to be reconnected in the future. The discussion became heated as residents and officials debated the implications of the platforms and their impact on the surrounding area. The specific nature of the platforms and their intended use appeared to be a source of ongoing community tension, though the exact outcome of this discussion was not clearly resolved during the meeting. **Taylormade Real Estate, LLC Traffic Safety Concerns** The second major point of contention involved a proposed childcare center by Taylormade Real Estate, LLC. Local residents raised significant concerns about the potential increase in traffic that would result from the facility and the associated safety risks this could pose to the community. The opposition focused on how additional vehicle traffic from parents dropping off and picking up children could create hazardous conditions in the area. This issue proved particularly divisive among decision-makers, ultimately resulting in a split vote. The close nature of the vote reflected the genuine disagreement within the governing body about how to balance the community's need for childcare services against residents' legitimate safety concerns about increased traffic volume and potential risks to pedestrians and other drivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Both contested items highlighted the ongoing tension between development interests and community concerns about safety and quality of life impacts. ## The Greathouse Property (The Village at Great Acres) (AMD) [timestamp: 02:00] The agenda item for The Greathouse Property (The Village at Great Acres) with identifier PLN-MJSUB-17-00023 was withdrawn by the applicant before any substantive discussion took place. Richard Murphy addressed the matter, explaining that the applicant had chosen to withdraw the item. The withdrawal was prompted by the submission of a minor subdivision plat that effectively addressed the issues that were originally intended to be resolved through this agenda item. No debate or detailed presentation occurred regarding the specifics of the property development or the proposed amendments, as the withdrawal eliminated the need for further consideration by the planning body. The item was removed from active consideration without any formal vote or extended discussion of the merits of the original proposal. The outcome represents an administrative resolution where the applicant found an alternative path forward through the minor subdivision process rather than proceeding with the originally planned approach for The Village at Great Acres development. ## Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) (AMD #21) [timestamp: 05:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00006 regarding the Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) development plan amendment. Rich Murphy served as the key speaker for this item. The agenda item was postponed during the meeting to provide the applicant with additional time to prepare the necessary information required for the development plan review. No substantive discussion of the project details took place, as the focus was on allowing adequate preparation time for a more comprehensive presentation at a future meeting. The Commission's decision to postpone reflects standard practice when applicants need more time to compile required documentation or address preliminary concerns before formal review. This postponement ensures that when the item returns to the Commission, all necessary materials will be available for thorough consideration. The item will be rescheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting once the applicant has completed their preparation of the required development plan information. ## Boone Creek Outdoors [timestamp: 45:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00025 regarding Boone Creek Outdoors on Mr. Park's property. Dick Murphy served as the key speaker for this discussion item. The primary focus of the discussion centered on the specific location of platforms planned for the property and the establishment of appropriate boundaries. Commissioners emphasized the importance of implementing clear safety measures as part of the development proposal. The commission examined the positioning of the proposed platforms and discussed how they would integrate with the existing property layout. Safety considerations were a significant component of the review, with commissioners seeking assurance that proper precautions would be incorporated into the final design. Boundary delineation emerged as another critical aspect of the discussion, with the commission working to ensure that property lines and operational areas would be clearly defined and marked. This appeared to be essential for both operational clarity and regulatory compliance. Following their review and discussion of the location specifications, boundary requirements, and safety protocols, the commission reached a decision on the proposal. The item was approved, indicating that the commissioners found the presented plans for Boone Creek Outdoors to be satisfactory and in compliance with applicable requirements. The approval suggests that Mr. Park's proposal met the commission's standards for platform placement, boundary establishment, and safety implementation, allowing the Boone Creek Outdoors project to move forward as presented. ## Taylormade Real Estate, LLC [timestamp: 120:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MAR-17-00006 regarding Taylormade Real Estate, LLC's application for a zone map amendment to establish a childcare center. Nicauragua Olson served as a key speaker during the discussion of this proposal. The commission's deliberations centered on the potential impacts of the proposed childcare facility on the surrounding area. Traffic concerns emerged as a primary focus of the discussion, with commissioners examining how the childcare center would affect vehicle flow and parking in the neighborhood. The commission also evaluated the broader neighborhood impact that the facility might have on the surrounding residential area. The zone map amendment would allow for the operation of a childcare center at the proposed location, representing a change in the permitted uses for the property. Commissioners weighed the benefits of providing childcare services to the community against potential concerns raised about the facility's integration into the existing neighborhood. Following their review and discussion of the application, traffic considerations, and neighborhood impact assessments, the commission voted to approve the zone map amendment for Taylormade Real Estate, LLC. This approval allows the applicant to proceed with their plans to establish the childcare center at the designated location. The approval represents the commission's determination that the proposed childcare facility would be compatible with the surrounding area and that any traffic or neighborhood concerns could be adequately addressed through the development process. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — withdrawn (10-0): Withdrawal of PLN-MJSUB-17-00023: The Greathouse Property (The Village at Great Acres) (AMD) - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of PLN-MJDP-17-00006: Lexington Mall (Crossfit Maximus) (AMD #21) - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of PLN-MJSUB-17-00013: Covey Ridge Development Co. (Lot 1) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (9-1): Approval of PLN-MJDP-17-00025: Boone Creek Outdoors - **Motion** — passed (9-1): Approval of PLN-MAR-17-00006: Taylormade Real Estate, LLC --- ## Full transcript  I'd like to call the ush an county planning commission April 13, 2017 to order. Welcome one and all. Welcome commissioner ebbs, welcome staff. We do not have any minutes to approve so we will move right ahead with postponements and withdrawals. >> I'm dick murphy on page 4 of the agenda, item k plan mub 172731, and 2751 lease town road. We are withdrawing that. I mentioned to the subdivision committee that we had a minor subdivision plat at that time took care of that. I've submitted my letter of withdrawal to the staff just before meeting started. >> thank you, Mr. Murphy. And to our commission members, we will need to take formal action because it was placed on the docket as a formal action so just to clean it up, we'll need a motion for withdrawal. >> are you ready? >> yes, sir. >> move of withdrawal of pln-mj subvillage acres withdrawal. >> my monitor is not working. Properly moved and seconded that we would withdraw pl pln-mj sub-17-23 the greathouse property. Any discussion on the motion. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Motion carries. Mj sub. >> Mr. Chairman, can I direct your atengsz to page 6, item 2 a under pln-mj 17-6 lexington mall. we would like to ask for 30 day postponement on that project. >> Mr. Chairman that would be to your May 11 meeting. >> thank you. Anybody have anything to say about this agenda item? Anybody on the commission. I'll entertain a motion for postponement until May 11. >> I move for 30 day postponement pln-mjdp-17-6 to the May 11 meeting. >> Mr. Frank penn has made the motion, carolyn richardson has second postpone pln-mjdp-17-6 lexington mall until May 11. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none please vote when it comes up on the screens. Motion carries. Thank you. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, my name is matt carter with vision engineering. If you would turn in your agenda to page 7, item b pln-mjdp-17- 00015 ethington & ethington property tract 1. We would like to postpone this for one month. Major subdivision 17-16 millen mire property west with the same address. On page 3 item e we find major subdivision tuscany unit 11 a for property at 2599 old rose bud road. Major subdivision 17-18 tuscany unit 11 b with an address old rose bud road. On page 3 item g we find major subdivision-19 myers property amended final plat for property at 2441 field rush road. This involves property with an address of 744 greendale road. On page 4 item I this plat is on the consent agenda major subdivision 17-21 hillen mire property 2-a greendale road. And page 4 item j major subdivision hillen mire property 2-b at 744 greendale road. All of these plats are considered for recommendation. There is one final subdivision plan recommended for reapproval by your planning staff. That appears on page 5, item l of your meeting agenda. Plan 2015-105-f patchen wilkes town homes for final record plat for property with an address of 2101 patchen lakes lane. There are two final subdivision plans recommended for reapproval by your subdivision property. The first is on page 5 plan 2015-138 f zandale shopping center lots 2 and 4 and 2220 and 2230 nicholasville road. Also on this agenda, plan 2016-2-f patchen place subdivision unit 1 for property at 2000 and 2890 richmond road. Flipping to the second page we find the development plans that are recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. First appears on page 7 item c of the meeting agenda mdp unit one known as refugee incy development and also for kroger store l 352, an amended final development plan for property at 150 west lower elaine. , an amended final development plan for maple subdivision lot 10 for thrive church, for property at 3162 maip drive. We find an amended development plan for property with addresses 1001, 1003, 1021 north limestone street. On page 8 item f of your meeting agenda, we see mdp-17-known as palomar center. The 20th amendment to the final development plan for the shopping center at 3735 palomar center drive. Page 9 item g we find mdp-17-24, melbourne industrial park lot 12 b for property at 892 nan dino boulevard. , final development plan for property at 8291 and 8395 old richmond road and 8385 durbin lane, a portion of that address. Page 9 item I major development plan 17-26 hawkins hayden recollecteddor property baptist health amended final development plan at 2100 and 2108 old nicholasville. Mdp-2017-amended final development plan for 86 p south broadway. Page 10 item k, mjdp shopper's choice known as iga romany road. Final development plan with an address of 344 romany road and 357 duke road. I would point out to the commission that you will see for this development plan a proposed finding from your planning staff on a sheet with this plan title on it. One page and at the very bottom you will see a recommendtation for a finding that is required if you should approve this plan on the consent agenda to allow a 4% variance to the minimum tree canopy coverage for the lot. This is an item we discussed last week with your subdivision committee at some length. The final development plan on your consent agenda appears on page 11 item m of your meeting agenda dp-2015-90 marathon oil known as speedway super america llc, this is an amended final development plan for property at 140 mercer road. Mr. Chairman, at this time the planning commission can consider approving these items recommended by your subdivision committee or planning staff unless a member of the commission, a member of the audience gathered today or one of the applicants would ask you to remove one of these items to allow for further discussion. Thank you very much. >> would anyone from the audience like to pull any of these particular items? >> Mr. Chairman I'm dick murphy. The item on page 2 of the consent agenda, page mjdp boone creek outdoors. We have one issue we would like to discuss with you so that should probably be removed from the consent agenda. >> we'll pull it. Anyone else? Anyone on the commission? Could I get a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Mr. Chair, so moved. Here is the motion, the motion is to approve consent agenda presented by staff pulling item h, which is the pln manufacture boon creek outdoors for additional discussion and including the findings for pln-mjdp-chapel's choice. Is that your motion. Properly moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Please vote when it comes up with your screen >> I want to move approval of the row lease and call the bonds. >> second. >> properly moved by Mr. Cravens second by Mrs. Karen mundee. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none would you please vote on that when it comes up on the screen. Thank you. Motion carries. Yes, sir. >> good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. Today we are looking at the first item on the agenda, mj sub-17-0002. Lexington maul cross fit maximus plan. The purpose of this plat is to subdivide one lot into two and to reroute a utility easement. The property is located at 2397 richmond road. Part of the lexington mall property located to the rear, across from it is south land christian church and next to it is home depot to the rear is advanced auto parts. Additionally to the south along the border is where the utility easement will be rerouted so the applicant did submit revisions on April 11. The revisions can be found on the purple document within your packet. There are 12 revise the conditions with sfn of them being your standard sign-offs. We would like to see the sidewalk easement that's denoted on r-385 extended to the remaining tract. Currently there is a sidewalk shown on the southland christian property. We would like the word dedicated removed from the access easement and private street notes as well as the plan itself. lastly there is a need for reciprocal parking and access for the proposed lots. Otherwise a finding needs to be made by the planning commission on access easement per article 68-m. It sounds like the applicant is going to go the reciprocal parking route. So there will be no need for a finding. With that staff can recommend approval. I would be happy to answer any additional questions. >> any questions? >> this is for the division of one lot into two? Am I crejt? >> correct. >> can you define which are the two lots? >> the large lot is tract a where the home depot currently exists. Just subdividing an out parcel for the crossfit. >> what is the orange lines there? >> that's going to be the subdivided parcel. This is the outlie. This is just a zoning line. R-4 is here. >> and our committee discussion a couple months ago or something, comments were made as to the irregular -- irregularities with property lines, you know, there seems like there are several... >> within this area? >> yeah, making that turn and so forth. It just seems very irregular. >> from what I understood, what is here is non-buildable. It's just steep slope between where the proposed development is going to be and where the advanced auto parts is and home depot wanted to maintain that area. That's why it's shaped the way it is. >> it seals like the ordinance says we should avoid irregular property lines. >> but it doesn't prohibit it. >> okay. >> other questions from members of the commission? Applicant. >> rich murphy. We are going to add the reciprocal park access note to to the plat instead of requesting a finding. Other than that, we are good with everything. >> any questions of the applicant? Anyone in the audience like to address this particular plan? >> Mr. Chairman? >> yes. >> given the discussion we would recommend one small change to the recommendation. On number 9, we will need to leave that but let's also consider the original language as it appears on the agenda where we would denote the need for reciprocal parking and access for the proposed lots and doing that we can delete number 11 on the sheet. >> so with that we would have 11. Delete 11 and keep nine. >> yes, sir. Would anyone like to speak on this from a citizens' position for or against. The commission? >> I'll make a motion if you want. >> please. >> Mr. Chair I move for approval of plan mj sub17-2 with the 11 revised conditions changing number 9 to denote and eliminating discuss. >> properly moved and seconded that we approve pln-mjdp-17-2 lexington mall with the conditions by staff removing the word discuss from number 9 to denote. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up with your screens. Motion carries. >> good afternoon. We are going to turn to page 2, looking at a final record plat for the ridge development plan located at 5531 boonesboro road. Subdivide from one lot into two. This is the ramp going down to I-75 north at this point. This plan was approved by the subdivision committee with 13 conditions. The first eight are typical sign-offs including the approval for the division of water quality. We have a few cleanup conditions and we also have a waiver request for the improvements on the property and tom is going to give you information, give you the report on that. If there are any other problems or questions, you all May have... >> the lot that is being subdivided on the back, I can't tell from here, doesn't look like there is an access easement is there? >> there is an access easement that this is, the access eement leads from eighth and boonesboro through the property to the point here. there is a dash line right here. It's going to come off here. This also has access to the lots also. >> any other questions? >> thank you, Mr. Martin. >> I've been asked to check the microphone. It's not on, is it? >> push it closer to your mouth. >> like this? Now you can hear me? >> we heard that. >> how about this? >> no. >> yeah well, you May recall once I was asked not to put it too close and blow you all out of the room. Alrighty. I'm going to address the waiver request that we have on this property and you have been submitted a report and we are, we have a display put up for you and if you could turn it 90-degrees so it's linear, I think that would help there you go. Thank you. The waiver request for this property was for the public sewer requirement under your land subdivision regulations. It generated a tremendous amount of discussion and one of the key issues that staff was concerned about out here is that this is a private system and yet your subdivision requirements are that there be a public system. We have had waiver requests as you all well know where they are providing private sewer. The applicant initially submitted a waiver request citing hardship with topography and on this lot they wished to create. Staff met with the applicant along with engineering and what we discovered was interesting and that is the design of the private sewer in this area particularly in this area serves a private pump system and you can see it on the display at that time we put up, the exhibit, it's that yellow spot to my right. That's the approximate location of the pump station. The green lines you see are the private collection system that exist in this area. And as you all are no doubt aware, at one time this entire private system was served by the blue sky treatment plant which has been decommissioned and now this private system does feed into the public system. This raised the fact that the plans that the engineer had did not meet heightened our concern about the ability to sewer this lot. That was further complicated by the fact that the development plan on this property is current. They could pull a permit from the development plan. Staff became concerned about the inability to serve this appropriately. Part of that discussion was can they get to the pump station? Is it located appropriately? What is the condition? It's older. There is some concern about the condition and adequacy of the pump station. Then there was some discussion about well maybe, if you see where the green lines run, some run down and back up but could they come across the rest of the property, for instance? so there was a good but very considerable discussion on the appropriate way to sewer this. I had we have resolved that and what we are recommending on this waiver is that they file a minor development plan with a note and that note states that a major development plan must be filed and approved by the planning commission and certified for the new lot they're creating prior to any development of that lot. That will allow them then to come to you with a plan for how they're going to sewer this property and when they pull the permit they will be able to proceed with the design and build the appropriate sewer to serve this property. And I will report to you that they have filed that minor plan with your staff and it's under review to get the appropriate language on that development plan. I know that sounds a little almost an tie intuitive but it flags it and this lot now will not develop until this body has seen and approved an attended development plan how the lot shall be developed and we believe that then will allow the sewer situation to be appropriately addressed through the typical design and construction phase so with that, staff is recommending approval of the waiver now is. >> I hear what you are saying but what my concern is why are we approving a development plan that we know is going to be amended. Why didn't the amendment come forward with the development plan and make it work that way. I know there is a reason. i just don't know what it is. >> the applicant can elaborate on this. They're creating these two lots but they have no plans to develop the new lot. They have no user, no plans but they need for other financial reasons need to create the lots is our understanding and they're here and I'm sure they can elaborate on that for you. That would be a normal straightforward method to approach this. >> any other questions for Mr. Martin. Thank you. Applicant. >> mark mccain, this is a unique piece of property and I certainly appreciate the help of the staff to try to get this sorted out. To answer your question, we are trying to divide the property for the sale of the property on the right that you see, the property on the left, there is no intention to do anything with it at this point. Don't know that there will be any time in the near future. We are in agreement with the conditions set forth that the staff have put on us and would ask for approval. >> any questions? Thank you very much. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not I think we are ready for a motion. >> Mr. Chair. >> Miss Mund agree I move for approval with the waiver of pln-mjsub-17-00013 covey ridge development company lot 1 and it looks like this is an amended plan so I move for approval of that as suggested by staff with the 13 conditions. >> can I get a second? Okay. Properly moved by Miss Mundy second by Miss Carolyn richardson we approve pln-mj sub-1713 covey ridge development company with the waiver and with the 13 conditions outlines identified by staff motion passes. Next item on the agenda is page 5 I believe it is. Why did some of the reapprovals appear before the consent agenda. The staff informed me anything three years or older has to come back before the commission. Anything under three years can be on the consent agenda. So that's why we had to pull this one as is. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. This is item m on page 5, pln-mjsub-17-27 known as plan 200651 f glen creek unit 3-c-section 1 dove creek development. This is a reapproval of a plat that was approved originally as it stated in '06 and then again in 2012 and it is back before you. This is an area located out in the tates creek area armstrong mill and this is antian crossing, a cul-de-sac and there is a large townhouse development over the years and it drops back over into the creek and old jones town area of our community. This is very simply a townhouse lot development that they have come back, fronts on an access easement that they're seeking your reapproval of. You May recall a couple years ago we had an apartment building approved and that is staff's understanding May not be moving forward. They're returning to the townhouse concept. I would anticipate there May be an amended development plan for the property. But again they're just seeking reapproval of those townhouse lots. Staff is recommending reapproval of the plat subject to the conditions on the agendad to if you you have any questions I'm happy to answer them. >> any questions? I have one. How many times can an applicant ask for a reapproval. How many times can a property be reapproved? >> theoretically as many time as they want to ask you until you say enough is enough and want to see something different. >> okay. Applicant. >> I don't see anyone I recognize as being the applicant. >> we'll move on. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not we'll entertain a motion. >> move for reapproval of pln mjsub-17-27 with the nine conditions as recommended by staff. >> it has been properly moved and seconded that we approve pln mjsub-17-27 aka plan 2006-151f glen creek unit 3-c dove creek and the motion is made with the nine conditions as identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none please vote when it comes up on the screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Martin. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. Item h on page 9, major development plan 17-25 boon creek outdoors. Old richmond road not far from the interstate interchange on I-75 near durbin lane. The final development plan that you do see before you and we've also placed for you at a somewhat smaller blowup, the preliminary plan approved with the zone change, again here is the properties, this is the proposed parking area with the visitors center along with various activities that they are going to have on the property here is boone creek that we've outlined for you in this location. This is the existing fish camp and lodge, angler's lodge. The proap course, nature recreational activity and of course the canopy tour, this line that you can see here in this location. The plan that you see before you is based on a new survey of the property and one reason we presented this to the subdivision committee, we wanted the entire body to see that you see the angle here with the way the canopy tour now is proposed to function you can see the different geometry. So it has changed from the preliminary plan and the new location of the canopy tour where they altered it to meet the new boundary line that has been established with the new survey. We wanted you to see that different geometry. This would be a point here. Again staff wanted you to see the change in the geometry that is a as a result of that new survey. They have listed their conditional zoning restrictions as well as the board of adjustment approval of the various activities that they have placed on the plan. Again it is virtually identical through the preliminary plan that was approved with the exception again the changes in here with the canopy tour alignment. With that, you can see from the conditions on your agenda we have some standard sign offs for a final development plan we have a condition that they are to provide survey documentation of all the tree canopy items or platforms on their property. They're zoned a-n. The canopy tour are the platforms that were apparently placed on the adjoining property and that was an item that your subdivision committee placed on this plan. After the hearing before the subdivision committee. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for staff. >> any questions from the commission? Thank you. Applicant. >> I'm dick murphy representing boone creek outdoors. Tony barrett is with me, our designer. Want to give you background on this. We do want to discuss the last condition with you in light of the discussion that was at the subdivision committee last week. For those of you who were not at the subdivision committee I want to give you some background. As you all know when we were at the son change hearing in October there was a question raised about whether the northern platforms were on Mr. Kerry's property or not. At that time we explained that we had, Mr. Kerry prior to constructing the platforms had hired a surveyor Mr. Rick moore who went out and marked the property line on the site. And that marking was based upon primarily the old fence which was believed to be the boundary fence out there after it was marked by the surveyor Mr. Kerry constructed the platforms and the trees. At the hearing in October you all heard comments from people that they didn't think that all our platforms were on Mr. Kerry's property at that time we did because the line that the surveyor had marked was the line which both property owners Mr. Kerry on the south and mrk park on the north, the line they had always assumed was their property line. Nevertheless that comment, those comments led Mr. Kerry to believe that to put this issue to rest he ought to do a new survey. That was brought up at the rural land management board as well because complaint was brought to the rural land management board not about Mr. Kerry's property because there is no conservation easement or pdr on Mr. Kerry's property but on Mr. Park's property to the north. And as I've told everybody every time we come up here, I wanted to clarify I'm representing boone creek properties, boone creek outdoors and burgess kerry. I'm not here representing Mr. Park or the property to the north. I'm only here representing the property to the south on which the canopy tour is located but Mr. Kerry volunteered to get a survey done. Unfortunately Mr. Rick moore, who had marked our line, passed away a couple years ago and is no longer available to do it. He was a very good surveyor. So Mr. Kerry engaged vision engineering to prepare a new survey of the line and what the result of that is based on the old deed lines and calls and it showed that, under the new survey three of the trees on which we have platforms were located north of what they established is the property line. Our surveyor said well what we ought to do since both property owners had thought that the fence line was the established line, we ought to a property line agreement, get that recorded and that would establish the fence line as the property line. We are not doing that, hour. Mr. Kerry has taken the most conservative approach. We are going to assume that the new survey line, the one to the fartherrer south is the property line and as a result, the platforms that were located north of the line up here in three trees have been disconnected from the tour, taken off the tour and we've... There are a couple new locations south of the property line which are on the tour as a result of that there were eight sip zip lines other parts of the canopy tour. Moving stair cases and invisible stair cases, rope bridges and that sort of thing. But there were eight zip lines before. There are seven zip lines now. There is one fewer zip line on this tour. So as I said, all of the platforms are on what has been established as the kerry property under the new survey which is a lower more southerly line than the parties thought it was. And I pointed out we wanted to be, to tell everybody what has happened. There is one platform that straddles or one tree that straddles the property line. As I mentioned at the subdivision committee, I had learned about tree law many years ago when I was the junior member of the law department here in lexington and what it meant at that time for me to be the junior member is any time a call came in that nobody else wanted to take, they said murphy, take the call. So half of them were about trees. People say they've got a branch, their neighbor has a branch over their driveway, can they cut it down and all that stuff. i had to study tree law. And found out that if a tree trunk is on straddles a property line, the tree is the joint property of both owners. In other words one owner can't cut it down without getting permission of the other owner. Now if a tree were four feet the other way and it was all on one person's property, the person could cut it down without asking the neighbor even thoat branches overhang. But if it's on the line, joint property you can't cut it down out asking the neighbor's permission. So on this property, this tree straddles the property line. And there was a platform on it so I told burgess well, joint property, you could just leave the platform there but he took the more conservative approach. He cut the platform off so that there is only a platform on this tree now which overhangs his property. He put new rails on it so people wouldn't fall off but he has cut it off and it's only overhanging his property right there. There are a couple new locations for platforms and trees along here. This has been rerouted a little lithuania we are sorry for the confusion. As I said it was both property owners thought the property line was at the fence line and Mr. Kerry had it marked by a surveyor before he put the platforms up but this is a rural area things like this happen occasionally. Not the first time I've seen it in property issues. And both the property owners are going to treat this property line as the new property line. So that's the background I wanted to tell you so you knew everybody knew the same amount. I discussed this at the subdivision committee last thursday. The first eight conditions are regular sign-off conditions which are no problem at all. The ninth condition, we don't have a problem with either. We'll bring whatever documentation the staff wants so that we can show them that all these platforms are on the kerry property. 10 is says document the removal of off-site elements of the tree canopy tour and this was placed by the subdivision committee. And here's the problem we have. We have been in contact with Mr. Park. Now these are on Mr. Park's property; the ones on the north side of the line. As I mentioned to you, they're not on the canopy tour at all. There are no... The cables have been removed and everything. They're not going to be part of the tour. But they're now on Mr. Park's property. Mr. Burgess can go on Mr. Park's property and remove those, he has to get the permission of Mr. Park. We have been in touch with Mr. Park and Mr. Park has instructed that bee do not have permission to go on his property to remove them. And I want to point out that john is he likes nature himself, he likes to get out and he has an 11-year-old son and they May have a use for the platforms. they May want to make their own tree house or he mentioned it May be an observation deck for the telescope because it's a nice location. He May want to use those and we don't have the authority to go on his property and take those down now that it is established it is on Mr. Park's property. I do have... I understand the concerns. The concern is want to make sure that it's not used as part of the canopy tour, that our participants do not go on anybody else's property. So I've written up a proposed substitute for 10, if I can bring that over. That is to have read the document to the staff, document no platforms shall be located on the park property and no participants will enter the park property. And that's what we are doing anyway and we are happy to document that. The problem with 10 as it is now, we do not have permission to go on Mr. Park's property to remove the old platforms from his property. So that's where we are, and we appreciate your looking at it. We appreciate the staff working on this, and we would be happy to answer any questions y'all might have about it. >> Mr. Penn? >> Mr. Murphy, this is new information to me as far as did y'all have permission to go over there and disconnect them? >> I think we did. Mr. Park was aware that that was done, yes. >> it's really tough in a situation that is this public and in a situation that has been going on this long that all of a sudden you can go over there and disconnect them but now you can't go over and take the platforms down. The platforms are property of Mr. Burgess, Mr. Kerry. He put them on there. He paid for them. He disconnected them and now you are trying to make us believe that he can't take them down? >> I'm quoting the facts as they are. Mr. Park was aware that we disconnected them. We have asked permission to go on his property to remove these and Mr. Kerry is willing to do that. Mr. Park has said no. I'm not... I can't read Mr. Park's mind. I can give you the reasons that I anticipate. I have talked to him and he has told me that he May have use for those himself. He does have a young son, they do enjoy recreation. If somebody, if you improve your neighbor's property by mistake, you don't have the right to come and take it out after you've done it. When we did this, we thought it was burgess' property and Mr. Park did, too. He was aware this was going in. Nobody was deceiving the other property owner or anything like that. We just don't have authority to do it. I mean I'm... I'm reporting what we can to you. >> tracey, I guess my question is, does it matter anyway because this condition, the way i read it says removal of the off site element of the tree canopy tour. Those platforms have already been decommissioned from the tour. They're decommissioned on the tour. No longer on the tour. >> well, I understand what you are saying but had I been at the subdivision committee meeting last week I would have had a problem with the wording of the condition because as I understand it, the discussion was not about the removal of the lieps connecting it, it was removal of those platforms and you know, there are a lot of other issues that are going into this that have, that are of no real issue to me strictly from a legal standpoint but I think that what Mr. Murphy is telling you is that now there has been a property line established that everyone is accepting of and those things no matter who located them there are on Mr. Park's property, he is going to have to let people on there to remove them. He has advised me as well earlier today, Mr. Park, that he, at this time is not going to give permission do that for a series of personal reasons that I'm not going to get into. But it's his call because it's on his property. So I think it would, while I understand what you are saying, it would be disingenuous to leave it as it is because everyone, as I understand it, at the subdifficult commission committee was talking about the platforms. If it was put on there with that, I would feel uncomfortable leaving it that way. >> I was not at the subdivision committee meeting this month. I wasn't aware of this but I don't see how we can impose a condition when it's not his property. So, you know, to me, item 10 should be removeed from this. >> Mr. Penn. >> the zone change was granted on the statement made by the applicant that if they were on somebody else's property they would remove it, not that they disconnect it, not that they do anything. The zone change was granted to the a-n based on Mr. Kerry and Mr. Murphy's statement that if they were on Mr. Park's property, they would be removed. And you can go back and look at it and you can go back and read it and do whatever you want to do. The point is is that in most situations that can be worked out. In this situation I would like to put this thing to bed and be done with it and by us going down the road we are going down right now we are not putting this thing to bed, we're kicking the can down the road. Than zone change was based on the that if they were on somebody else's property they would be removed, not they would be disconnected. They would be removed. >> frankly I agree with that and I was there and I heard of all but then I also understand that Mr. Park is not willing to allow them do that now and so that ties burgess' hands as far as trespassing on someone else's property. He committed to do it without the knowledge that they were on Mr. Park's property for sure and so it really ties burgess' hands and Mr. Murphy's hands to be able to do that, I mean if it were me and I didn't want somebody on my property removing something, I would continue with that. I see that side of it as well. I see both sides of it but I think for us to ask someone to trespass on somebody's property to go ahead and do what they committed to when now they're being told they can't asking us to ask him to break the law and that bothers me. >> we would not have had a unanimous vote to go forward with this had we not had their statement that they would remove them if it was on somebody else's property. Now whether we had had a majority or not I don't know. I'm just saying to you to clean this thing up and put it to bed, they need to remove those... >> I agree with that but then you also have a property owner saying you can't. You cannot trespass on my property. He didn't know that when he committed it. >> okay. >> wait a minute. Just a minute. Hold on. Let's give Miss Plumb plumb we will a chance. >> we all believe in the process here but in this case the substance of the process was flawed. And we were essentially fibbed and shenanigans have gone on with this plan from the get go and so it surprises me not that we come a situation such as this; that oh no, we can't remove them because they're on somebody's property when the promise was made. I just... I've lost the moral compass with this situation. The applicant appeared long, long ago and not too far away with this plan. He has robbed the staff of time, he has robbed the planning commission of a commitment and he has robbed himself of self respect and this is another example. Now legal said, was talking about platforms. We are not talking only about platforms. We are talking about platforms, we are talking about connecting wires and we are talking about guide wires on trees. So there is a lot of equipment to come down. And I'm really, well, I am a betting person. And I would bet you that these will be connected again and will go zilching on along the way we have been intended months ago. So there needs to be a solution to this. And I know if it's john parks and I know the legal aspect, but lawyers get around legal issues. That's why they exist. Thank you. >> Mr. Drake. >> it seems to me there is a legal barrier that makes this a pretty simple question. The applicant initially installed platforms on Mr. Park's property. Mr. Park owns those platforms I think and the applicant does not have the right to go take them back from him now. And whatever transpired to get us to this position is irrelevant. It's already been done. The only question now is whether or not boone creek can remove platforms as they agreed to do. But I would like to ask counsel if there is not a legal barrier for them preventing them from doing that. In which case all this argument is moot. >> I agree with you. When you install something on somebody else's property knowingly or not knowingly, and then I mean it becomes their property. The other problem is as Miss Mundy alluded to, I think we have a bit of a legal hurdle as well to ask and make a condition for a development plan that is not on another piece of property and not of someone else to make it a condition of this development plan. I have some concerns about that. And I'm going to go out on a limb here, andy May regret it, but you know, it seems to me that the issue much as you said Mr. Drake, it is what it is as of today. And all these other things that are coming into play really, if the point is to not have it connected, I don't understand why this condition won't work. And if there is some reconnection of those lines, which there is not an indication that it is going to happen, but if by some chance there is a reconnection of lines from Mr. Kerry's property to Mr. Park's property, which Mr. Park has informed me he doesn't want, then that's a zoning violation. So that will have to be dealt with. It will violate the conditional use permit like any other one. So that's where I see it from a legal point of view. >> Mr. Pn has another question for you Miss Jones. >> Miss Jones, how can we tabling Mr. Murphy's number 10 and accomplish what we are trying to do? >> I'm sorry, how can we do what? I'm having a hard time hearing. I don't know if it's me or the sound. The influence platforms are denoted on the development plan. That seems to me to document the fact. >> you can delete it if you like. >> one chief question for clarification sake, this is an acceptable number 10 or this is something that needs to be reworked. >> that's what I'm asking. >> I think it's acceptable but rather than referring to it as the park property I would rather refer to it by address just. It May not be Mr. Park's property 10 years from now, know. >> would you say adjoining property. >> I would rather do the address of Mr. Park's property rather than referring to it by his name. >> okay. We might also want to say no participants of boone creek adventures, you know, will enter the whatever address by its property address. >> that's even better. >> thank you Mr. Chair. Tracey, let me ask you this in regards to number 10 with where what you are talking about. Would it be simpler and more specific to limit any and all participants only to the boone creek property depicted on the development plan? >> you could little do that. >> that would prohibit them from going on to... Yeah in essence it would say no parks property or surrounding property. Because the conditional uses are pertaining to this zone change and this property right here right now. >> right. >> that's true. I think could you do that as well. >> instead of identifying park or neighboring property. Limit it only specifically to the boone creek property as depicted on this development plan. >> I think you could make that condition in lieu of this if you want to and I'm assuming Mr. Murphy won't have a problem with that. >> do you need a minute to get this number 10 cleaned up for us. We can go on with some other elements. We haven't heard from the citizens. I don't know if there are citizens who want to speak to this but if we do, we are still at the part where the applicant ... Okay. We'll do that then. Just a minute. >> I have a question for Mr. Murphy if I could. >> one more question Mr. Murphy. >> could you show me where the horse trails are on there? >> need to get tony up here. Tony barrett, our designer, to do that. I do mention we have a canoe place down on the creek here, too, and canoes will be in the creek, which is a water of the state when we are doing this note. >> the equine trail will follow the same hiking trail... >> speak up. >> I have do what tom did. I'm not going to go through all his... >> you don't have a beard though. >> but the equine trail would follow the same old mill wagon trail that is part of the hiking trail. >> but the reason I ask is I recall the October 27 hearing that the applicant stated there would be no horses and no llamas on the property and now I'm wondering why we have a horse trail. >> let me respond to that a little bit because that discussion occurred at the subdivision committee. We went back to the tape of the October meeting and as far as the platforms what I said on part 2, part 2 is the part that was over in the phoenix building, hour two, minute 16, second 20. I said make it a condition of your approval all our platforms have to be on Mr. Kerry's property. And then hour 246:10. Either I said or Mr. Kerry said, we are not sure who said it. There is no plan to stable any animals on Mr. Park's property. There was a suspicion by some of our neighbors that they were going to be stabled on Mr. Park's property and then brought to this property and we said there no, sir plan to stable any animals on Mr. Park's property. So that's what we've got and burgess had said at one point that he lives on the other side of Mr. Park. This is at hour two 46:50. I live on the other side of Mr. Park and I have a barn where I have milamas and horses and actually jane is raising her hand, I assume the snyders would allow us to use the their land and Miss Snyder said yes. That's the property to the south, Miss Snyder is the owner to the south because the question as I recall from that hearing was somehow Mr. Park's property was going to be used for stables and we are trying to clarify that it was not. So that's what we found from going through the record. >> what I was referring to. I remember the applicant standing at the top of the room there and he said he was asked about horses and llama and he said well I just threw in every condition I could think of and that included the horses. And he said, if you want them out, I'll take horses out. I'm taking horses out right now. >> he May have offered to take them out. If you wanted them out, the horses was not a condition of approval. It was not not voted a condition of approval. We are allowed to have horses on there. >> thank you. >> any other questions for the applicant? Then we'll move on to the next facet and that's citizens comments. How many here would like to speak on behalf or against this particular? Okay. Yes, sir. Come forward. Give us your name and address. Please stay within the three-minute timeframe. >> Mr. Chairman, board, thank you, I'm alex martin 7041 grimes mill road. As you know, our neighborhood and family has been opposed to this project. I have a couple of questions that would I like to address. One was brought up. The horses. There is a horse stable on this property or on this development plan listed? If so are they going to trailer it from his existing property which is on the other side of park's? Or are they planning on walking through? If they're staging at a different property should it actually be on this development plan or not? That's a question. Non-conforming building that the we discussed before and that meeting tracey said it was in fact a non-conforming building. It could not be expanded. We had finished our discussion time. Decks had been expanded to that non-conforming building. I wanted to just bring that up. You cannot expand a non-conforming use. So if the ordinance says that you can't expand a non-conforming use does that include density as well in we are taking it from a care taker's residence to a care taker's residence, a gift shop and a welcome center. Something for you all to think about. Mr. Murphy said that the one tree on the boundary was owned by both parties. The applicant and Mr. Park. Is it split by branches? Is it split down the middle? Or do you own the whole tree together? If so, can that be there in that's a question we've always had. Not whether it's on his property or not. Can that be there if it's owned by both properties? As we know, the one property is pdr. It cannot have commercial use that was not designated and preapproved before it was accepted in the pdr program. Something to think about. The kayaks and the stream. Yeah, you are and can kayak on boone creek although it is listed as a blue water stream that's a designation from fema that says this is a flood prone stream. If you go upstream and you have to portage, kentucky state law is on the side of the land owner. Portaging is not allowed. there were a couple of cases people got hurt portaging, falling, tripping, breaking an arm or leg or whatever. Portaging is not allowed on boone creek. I always assumed it was. It was not. One of the things I think we mentioned before as a condition was to set a boundary fence. I understand you all thought it was extreme. Would you consider signs? As number 10 rather than just park property. We would like to say the participants on neighboring properties. We don't want people on ours as well as park's or whoever. So I would like is to be neighboring properties as opposed to just one name. You all kind of addressed that earlier. As for the one structure. Are there guide wires connected to the tree still. What portion of that has been fixed? Nobody has been down there from the neighborhood that has opposed this. We have never been allowed. Mary diane hannah called me earlier today. She wanted to come. She is President Of the neighborhood association. She could not make it and asked me to say before it is approved, can we go down and inspect with the city to see that there are no guide wires, to see that they are, in fact off and it doesn't have to be me. Just somebody from the neighborhood association. We are just trying to keep everything honest and want to see for ourselves. As for not being able to be removed from john parks, I have a question for each and every one of you all. You have a friend, you have a previous lawyer for boone creek properties and it is built on his property. I think if you all denied the final development plan today you would see Mr. Park was very willing to remove those. I was at the hearing. I heard we will remove any aspect of this from Mr. Park. If Mr. Park says no, Mr. Kerry and his lawyer insinuated they would be removed. Call their bluff. You all have the opportunity right now to say look, we aren't going to approve this for final development plan until those are removed. At that point I bet you see Mr. Park would be a little more willing to remove those and have Mr. Kerry remove those. I don't want to take anymore of your time. Thank you all very much. Thank you for listening. >> anyone else want to speak to this particular plan for or against? Okay. At this time we have an opportunity according to our process for the petitioner to come up and maybe hopefully maybe get some of the answers that citizens has asked. Mr. Murphy. >> nobody in the world more than me wants Mr. Park to say rip those down. I would love that. i'm not john park's attorney. I can't tell him that he has to agree to that. We don't have control over him. That's the situation we placed ourselves in. I understand why that condition was placed on and this is in front of the rural land management board as well. You all need to realize that Mr. Kerry's property is in front of you today. Mr. Park's property is in front of the rural land management board. There is a complaint has been made claiming that he has made a commercial use of his property by having the platforms on his property. Even though he didn't know it. And that is pending before the rural land management board. They will be taking care of whatever happens on Mr. Park's property we don't feel he is in any violation but we are not representing him. He can represent himself. Give the situation we are, as I said, it would be nice to be able to resolve this that way but we can't at this point. The platforms on Mr. Park's property are no longer part of this tour. Your approval relates only to Mr. Kerry's property. It does not relate to Mr. Park's property. It does not do anything to those platforms that are there. He could use those as a tree house or astronomical observer to or something like that as he wants it and I think is probably his right to do. I wanted to address the non-conforming issue and put into the record the exhibit we put in the record in October. About what we are calling the welcome center which is the building up on us-25 and this is an advertisement from the lexington newspaper in 1973 advertising the auction of the property on December 15, 173 with a picture of the building on it. It has been there since 1973. Discussion was decks that have been put on. These were addressed way at the beginning before our zone change and we, staff looked at that and we looked at that and agreed that the building could not be expanded beyond certain lines where it is and we agreed to that. The building cannot be expanded anymore than it is but it is a valid non-conforming use. The anglers club was built in 1982 as well, the other building on the property. And the visitor center will be just be an accessory use to the canopy tour. I saw the staff's proposed wording and I did want to mention as I did to you that one of the parts approved for this is the canoes and canoes have the right to use the creek and I'm assuming that that wording does not limit where canoes can go that might put in down on boone creek on this property. If my assumption is not correct and it does limit where the canoes can go, we would like to clarify that this does not apply to canoes using boone creek. We are happy with all participants being on Mr. Kerry's property. All participants will be on Mr. Kerry's property. I regret Mr. Kerry regrets situation we are in. I know this has got especially to be much more than a dispute over the canopy tour. I know there are very, very strong feelings on both sides and I know a lot of people on one side or the other think that everything the other one has done is a lie and was done as part of advancing some conspiracy. That goes both ways, goes both ways on this. I know I've worked on this for three years. I haven't worked on this for the full six years. But I know that I knew early on did you have a survey on, yes, it was marked by rick moore, both parties thought these platforms were on Mr. Kerry's property. It turnses out with the new survey they May not be even though we could have corrected this by doing a boundary line survey and making the boundary line where the old fence was, we are not doing that. We are working the conservative situation, which is accepting the new survey line as the boundary line and reacting accordingly to that. So that we have moved... We have constructed new platforms tory place the old one. We have done everything we can. We would like to be able to remove the ones on Mr. Park's property and if we got permission, we would. But we have to respect his property rights as well. We have to respect his ability to say no. horses are an agricultural use. Would I hate to get into a situation where in an agricultural zone we are preventing the use of horses on property to set that precedent. That's where we are at. We certainly regret the situation we are in but we wanted to tell you where we are at and we've done everything we can to remedy the situation. Thank you. >> since you are representing the community, is there anything else you would like to say? You have an opportunity. I'm not talking about Mr. Burgess. I'm talk is about the representative... Mr. Martin. Okay. Does the staff have anything on the rebutal end of it? If not then what I'm going to do is allow my commission members a chance to ask any questions that they May have for clarification purposes and after that we'll close off. Mr. Owens, and I apologize ladies and gentlemen, we are having some computer difficulties as you can understand and so they're trying to help us out here. >> we can vote by raising your hand. >> go ahead Mr. Owens. >> question. Back to equine and it's more development plan situation than anything. Casey caulker -- tracey question would be from one of you all. We've got parking restrictions, parking allowances as far as up at the welcome center. Are we allowing for any trailering of horses in? or any parking for trailering of horses in? There is no location on the plan. If gl if there is no livery stable and no trailering, my concern is how are the horses going to get there? >> just looking at the plan, 9 x 18 parking spaces. There is nothing called out for a larger vehicle. >> that is a concern. Mr. Murphy you're okay with number 10... I think the canoe and kayaking is kind of a given. I would like to make sure that any participants of canoeing and kayaking doesn't portage over to other people's property. The only thing you can do is signage or instruction I would think. >> we are okay with number 10. Mr. Kerr are I told me to tell you we are okay with no trailering of animals in of horses. No trailering of horses on this property, too. >> would that be okay as a condition? No trailering of horses? >> okay. >> is that added in. >> where does it go. At the end canoes kayaks and... No trailering of horses. At this time this is an opportunity if you have any questions for the applicant or anyone else, you can ask it. Other than that, if not, I'm going to close that part of the hearing so I'll give you one last shot at it. Okay then I'm going to close the hearing to the public and have a discussion among us and a vote among us here on the panel. anyone want to say anything? >> yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Murphy has indicated he has been involved for three years. It seems I have been involved with this for 20 years. It has been a long time and even to think that we had a development plan for boone creek outdoors that was eligible for the consent agenda I think has come a long way. Yeah, I'm very concerned with how we got here with statements that have been made personally with as far as Mr. Park. He was representing boone creek at one time. He is very knowledgeable as to was was going on, what occurred and was representing that he was at the October hearing with Mr. Kerry and I feel very strange that he would now say oh no, I don't want this to occur. But it is what it is. Like I said, we have been a long way. I'm not going to repeat all of this. I'm just glad hopefully we are at an end. I think we'll see stuff down the road. And hopefully it goes much easier than what this has gone in the past five or six years. Mr. Chair I'm more than willing to make a motion whenever anybody is ready. >> some other comments first Mr. Penn. >> I. >> I know I have been involved with this since we started the recreational zota and we have been able to accomplish a lot with the recreational zota it hasn't been easy I think the zone change was the result of that recreational so thea. I'm proud of that. This has been the toughest thing I've looked at since I have been on the planning commission close to 14 years and the reason for it is the an animosity on both sides of the fence and Mr. Murphy alluded to that and I certainly understand that. I happen to sit on both boards on the rural land management board and on this planning commission and the ability to take those things down would have helped Mr. Park a whole lot. So I have the same problem that mike owens has. I don't understand why he is doing what he is doing. He just makes us have to take another step forward. That's not our issue here at the planning commission. It could have been involved right here today by taking them down it wasn't and the reason I'm saying this on the record number one it gets it off my chest but number two I want to paint the context we are in here and the context is that you have a business that can go forward that you have been very, very persevering on and I admire your business and I'm glad we could get the an done for you but sooner or later we've got to quit promising things we cannot deliver and find a reason why we can't deliver it. And that's where I think we are today. Am I going to vote no and try to stop this? No. The way our legal staff has crafted it alleviates a lot of my concerns but there has to be faith on both sides and this playing gotcha game and coming in here saying Mr. Park won't allow it, I have a real problem with just like mike does but it's not going to stop me from voting for it because I think you have a right to do your business on your own property and I'm not going to stand in the way of that but I do not appreciate making statements and then coming in and finding a reason why you can't do it even though Mr. Park has a valid reason to say they cannot come down. But he had a valid reason to let you take them down. So that's where I am with the commission and I had to say that. Thank you very much for chair. >> anyone else on the commission like to say anything? Mr. Drake. >> I don't feel compelled to defend Mr. Park but do I have sympathy with him by whatever course something wound up on my property that I liked, it's mine and if I like it I'm going to keep it so I don't see what he is doing is illogical. Again I don't say that because I'm compelled to defend him. It just seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. >> anyone else. >> just for the record I'm fairly concerned about what I've heard today. From members of the commission in that we are making some of the commission members, some of you all have made accusations as to what someone else is going to do at some point in time. i don't have a magic ball. I don't have a, you know, I can't predict the future but I'm certainly not going to accuse anyone of doing something when they haven't done it. And I am very bothered by that and I think that that was not the purpose for this to come before the commission today. There was a specific purpose for today and I'm rather upset about the fact that that people are not willing to take someone at their word or at least until there is... If there is something goes wrong, we will, it will be back. If they go across that line, it will be back. But I'm not going to accuse them of thinking about figuring out a conspiracy to do it at this point in time. >> Miss Plumlee. >> in response to that, future performance is usually indicated by past performance and that is why I spoke those words previously at this meeting. It's history. If you look at the history of this application, it has not been smooth. It has been rough and at this point I don't know if it is going to be rough or smooth, but I would vote on rough. >> anyone else on the commission have anything else to say? Okay. I had a lot to say but the truth of the matter is that it's already been said so I'll save time and simply say that for those of you who are members of the community, this is essentially what happens when you wind up with m form of mistrust and everything is nuanced and everything is parsed and with that I'll just let it go and I'll come back to you Mr. Owens. You wait indicated you would like to make a motion. >> thank you, Mr. Chair and I would have to concur with what you just said in some situations we've got to make sure that every t is crossed and I is dotted. Leaving no stone unturned. But if everybody is ready. I'll move for approval of pln-mj dp-25 boone creek outdoors with the first nine conditions listed on the agenda with number 10 to read as shown on the screen depicted on the screen. I would like to add the no trailering of horses as condition number 11. >> properly moved by Mr. Mike owens and seconded by david drake that we approve pln-mjdp- 17-25 outdoors with number 10 indicated that which is on the screens which says the participants in boone creek outdoor activities depicted on plan-mjdp-17-25 limited only to the property shown on-mjdp- -mjdp --- 25. Indicate nothing trailing of horses or llamas on the boone creek property. Everyone understand the motion? Any other discussion on the motion. Hearing none would you please vote on your screens? Please vote as you can. Let's see what happens. How do you vote? Ayes. Nays. One nay. 9-1 is the vote. Motion passes. thank you. We are going to have a five-minute recess. So we'll adjourn for five minutes. Thank you. While we are reasem blipping, the I.T. Department told me to remind the commission members, they had a system upgrade and as a result of that, the monitors if you don't use them, if you don't move your mouse around every so often, your monitor will go to sleep. That's why some of the monitors have been going off so I asked the I.T. Department if he or she could extend the time for when our monitors are on. They're trying to figure out how to deal with that. That's the reason the monitors have been going into sleep mode because, many of you don't use a mouse to begin with so you might want to touch your screen or do something that might keep your screen alive. This is located at the intersection of citation boulevard just as you know recently been completed in this area and leestown road. Here we have robinson way and you can see robinson intersects with leestown and we have a lot of residential area masterson station and residential areas in this location. The last time the plan was approved, the big issue was the creek that comes and they are going to now put that in a culvert and the big discussion had been whether or not to relocate it and the impact on this area of the property. The plan is back before you for one single reason in a relatively simple amendment. They wish to add a right in right out of of leestown. Now we have the 79,000 square foot anchor building here. A bank is proposed in this location, gas canopies here, retail, restaurant and restaurant with the associated parking. This little private street back in here is abigail way, which is how it is currently addressed. Staff as summing this could change with the access and these people could end up with leestown road address. I'm sure that will probably... The access they're proposing is subject to a waiver request and that has been distributed to you. And it's at your, should be in your packet. The applicant submitted a traffic study with this particular request and that is because your subdivision regulations for non-residential access have a formula and that formula defaults to 1400 feet or by using the traffic study, trip-ins and then you follow the math and work out spacing that would be appropriate based on the trip-ins that are generated by commercial development. And in this particular case, that is approximately 730 feet and that's measured from center line of the nearest intersections to the proposed access point. And this particular case they're requesting a waiver that will be about 260-280 feet and that is because this proposed right in and right out is almost in the middle of the property equal distance from robinson way and citation. It's a little belong longer. The waiver is 20 feet longer from robinson way than from citation boulevard and again this, of course, is a signalized intersection and the leestown improvement is have provided a median so we have controls and as you are very aware we have had a lot of requests for right in right outs lately and staff has been very consistent in that we support them when we have good median controls so that we don't get that left turn conflict staff is recommending approval. We don't get these often on the right in right out request. They gave us a traffic study and justification for the waiver request and staff would just add that they cited innovation and large scale development and under your regulations that particular people are proposing alternative street systems so staff doesn't really believe that that is the appropriate justification in this instance. We would agree that like many recent developments where they have cited hardship for a commercial development that is located on arterials, that would be a more appropriate justification would be a hardship justification for this particular right in and right out it should reduce traffic back here in the local streets and through the neighborhood, helping to reduce conflicts. So we think that actually is a positive in this regard. And again as you can see, there is an access point here and here on fern dale as well as here on robinson. but the convenience and if this functions well as it should, we do agree with the applicant, it should help reduce conflicts on that surrounding system. With that, staff is recommending approval of the waiver. >> any questions. >> as well as the development plan. >> any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Applicant. >> Mr. Chairman, bruce simpson on behalf of the applicant. We agree with Mr. Martin's presentation and ask for your all's approval. If you have any questions, happy to respond. >> any questions for Mr. Simpson? Miss Plumlee? Oh you didn't want to... I'm sorry. I saw you trying to push buttons over there. Okay Mr. Simpson, thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay if not then I'll bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and/or motion. >> Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion to approve plan 17-00030 with the accompanying waiver and the nine conditions as written. >> properly moved by Mr. Cravens, second by Mr. Smith that we approve pln-mjdp-17-30 masterson station with the nine conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none... Mr. Sahly, I do have one question myself. On one plan I have pln-mjdp-17-33 and then I have one, the waiver is 33 and the plan has 30. >> probably a typo on the waiver. I would go with the one on the agenda Mr. Chairman. >> that's fine. With that said, any other discussion? Please vote when it comes up with your screens. It has been noted that Mrs. Plumlee's mouse is out of cheese. I just want that to be shown for the record. If you don't feed 'em... But she votes yes. Okay, we have... >> Mr. Chair. >> nine yes with one abstension. >> I had to do that. I did the appraisal for dot on the access opening. It's long done but... >> thank you. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, if I May direct your attention to page 11 item 3 under plat receive vagues. This is revocation this is one of those interesting situations that comes up occasionally I think since I have been back on staff, this is the third one, they've all been similar. They've all been consolidation plats on property, two in the ag area. This happens to be a consolidation plat that was done on wood lacker avenue which is out near dover road between russell cave and north broadway. Older subdivision, r-1 b nice big lots, front yards, big homes. Apparently the owner bought the adjoining property and wanted to do the right thing and consolidated those properties back in the fall. Then subsequently hired an architect and said I would like for you to design a nice guest home for my family and he proceeded to do so and found out when he wanted to pull a permit that it was not legal under your zoning ordinance to build a house of that size with the kitchen as well where one already existed, a principal dwelling on the property. They came and met with staff and staff said well you just need to recreate an independent lot and then you can build whatever house you would like. The good news for them was that because they bought it and consolidated it, they were able to provide an affidavit that is required under kr s-100.285 which states this property has not changed hands based on the consolidation plat which of course it has not. So with that, they do meet the requirements under krs 100 for a revocation by this body and so staff is recommending that you do the revocation on the mine or consolidation plan. >> I have not seen a representative for the applicant. >> anybody in the audience like to speak to this particular plat? Revocation. I bring it back to the commission then for additional discussion or motion? >> I'll do the motion. >> okay Mr. Penn. >> Mr. Chairman I move for approval of the plat revocation for pln mssub-16-31 elkhorn park subdivision woodlacker avenue. >> second. >> moved and seconded that we approve pln mnsub-16-31 elkhorn subdivision block 10 lots 3 and 4 and this is for plat revocation and the motion is for approval. Any discussion on the motion? Excuse me once again I'm getting up here on my monitor... Thank you. Pleats vote when it comes up on the screen. Carolyn, is your house still... >> trapped. >> how would you like to register your vote? Yes, thank you. Motion passes. Thank you. >> Mr. Chairman thank you. Members of the commission. Next item page 12 of the meeting agenda item a, this is zone change pln-mar-17-06 taylor made real estate llc, request is a rezoning petition from an existing townhouse residential zone change involves three and three quarters net acres of property within an address of 1580 higby mill road. The subject property is on the north side of man o' war boulevard very near the intersection of clays mill road. Clays mill and man o'war and for those in the audience, clays mill road is here, man o'war is here. So it's to the west of man o'war, it's eastern boundary here is the former clays mill road. There used to be a jog in clays mill road before man o'war was built and that portion of the road way continued south beyond higby mill road which provides the northern boundary to the subject property at this location. Higby mill has been terminated and comes into cornwall drive at this location here but this portion of higby road is slightly improved version of the old county road that existed in this area before much of the res lengs and other development occurred in this area many years ago. The existing zoning of the parcel along with that zone west and south is r-1t single family townhouse residential zone that only permits attached single family residential development. Property immediately east is a-u son, a vacant parcel and property to the north is r-1 c zone, single family residential zone that allows single family detached housing on lots of at least 8,000 square feet. So the patrioter is asking that this parcel be zoned r-3 from its current zone status this property flows from east to west which is from right to left in this photograph, but you can see here also the site is heavily treed and as you can imagine with the associated creek there is a large portion of the property probably close to 50% of it that is in an associated flood plain area. It also gives you a good idea of the fairly low density of the adjoining subdivisions in this general area. We have some photographs of the subject property area. On the left slide we are looking at very near the intersection of what I mention was the old clays mill road so the subject property would be on the right in this photograph looking back towards clays mill road. The vacant property a-u immediately east is prominent in this photograph. You can see the rural nature of the road and the fact that it is tree lined. Photograph on the right is from the same location looking back in the westerly direction and that car that you see in the distance is about to make the right hand turn on to cornwall drive. The top property is a view of it from man o'war boulevard. The buildable area is the portion closest to man o'war boulevard and that will become evident as you review our last slide and also the development plan that has been submitted with the zone change. The water flowing in this slide comes under the old clays mill road way and on through the subject property. It is an access easement for the parcel involved in this rezoning because that half of the road way was closed by government action years ago as best we can tell, the portion on the east side of the road has never been closed and that is a most unusual circumstance from the staff's perspective. We haven't found that to exist very many places. But that's our understanding of the road way status. But on the subject property it is indicated as an access easement. It has been a closed public road way. again a view of the subject property as seen from man o'war boulevard to the north higby mill road and there are several lots in the r-1 c zone that do back up to the road. They do not access that road way the is a public park and you can see the public lot. I mention the flood plain. This is the existing 100-year flood plain, the blue line caitsz indicates the center of the creen and most of the developable area of the property in the photograph is the portion of the subject property that fronts along man o'war boulevard. It's only access is via that old portion of clays mill road that is now an access easement. Again the subject property here. Thank you denise. The staff in our zoning report indicated that a little history. Half of a zone change filed a little more than a year ago asking for the same zone change from r-1 t to r-3. At the same time there was an apartment development proposed mainly for the area not included in this yellow line. It was the developable area of that zone change even though it included the subject property. The staff felt it was more intense development than that surrounded this location. Those goals and object itches the plan than courages identifying opportunity for infill and redevelopment that respect in areas context and design features. That we should encourage the development of underutilized and vacant land in a contiguous and sustainable manner within the urban service area that we should encourage providing for well designed neighborhoods, minimizing disruption of natural features but when building new communities and identifying and protecting natural resources and landscapes before development occurs. The staff is in agreement with the petitioner's justification that the zone change furthers many of the goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan. We also cited in our report that we presented to the zoning committee a few weeks ago the child care centers and after school care for children is a necessary service that should be provided in support of the community's employers and public school system here. As I mentioned we feel the most appropriate area of the area that was reviewed a year ago for an r-3 zone change and development is itself area closest to the minor arterial. Generally you want the uses close to the road ways and allow the densities to increase distance from those. So that is what the staff finds in this case with the proposal of the development area to be occupied by a child care center. The petitioner is offering one conditional zoning restriction and you will see that at the end of the staff report and also on your agenda. On the agenda you will see that the zoning committee and your staff have recommended approval of this proposed zone change to an r-3 zone in that the zone change is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan for the four reasons that are listed on both of those documents. The conditional zoning restriction is that under the provisions of article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance that a use should be restricted on this property if it is to be rezoned r-3. And that would be to prohibit any future multifamily residential dwelling units on the subject property the finding necessary to impose that condition is the restriction is appropriate one because it is offered by the applicant but also to protect the adjacent residential properties to the north of the subject property. That concludes our report. We have a staff report prepared for the conditional use of the application I'll present to you in a moment. At this time I would be glad to answer questions about the zone change portion of the application you are reviewing this afternoon. >> any questions? Thank you. Mr. Martin I guess. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. The preliminary development plan that is associated with the zone change is on page 13 pln -- mjdp -- 17-11 wipdale subdivision. As you can see this is the area across itself creek from this location, here is old higby mill road, and obviously man o'war at this location. These are the townhouses approved previously on this property. They are proposing a 9,000 plus square foot daycare facility in this location. here is your associated parking and the play area that they have outlined for you. The property will be served by an access easement which is the old right of way which exists in this location, serves a house here and it will serve this property. This is a preliminary development plan so you will see a final development plan on this property should you approve the zone change and the conditional use. The plan has been reviewed by staff and by your subdivision committee and you can see that there are standard conditions for a plan, the first seven conditions the eighth one is just to complete some tree inventory information a requirement. And the addition of pedestrian access to the cross section on the property. They did add pedestrian access into this property from old higbee mill road of concern to the staff. We wanted to be sure there could be pedestrian access from the public right of way back into this facility. There are two issues about the old access easement and it crosses the creek in this location. And you can see those and that is the emergency access during 100 year flood as well as maintenance of this access easement. And you May recall those of you that were on the subdivision committee, a discussion about this and again being a preliminary, the applicant stated that they intended to replace this cross and elevate it above the 100 year flood plain elevation. That will allow emergency access back to this facility. And we would expect to see that resolved at the time of final development plan. In addition, since you are going have this property and this property sharing an access easement they will need to resolve maintenance and have that again clearly stated on your final development plan who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of this access easement. And here you can see the sidewalk I mentioned that they've added. Again, I believe that items 10 and 11 on your agenda could state resolve at time of final development plan. I will be happy to answer any questions you May have for staff. Any questions? Mr. Sahly again. He will do the conditional use. >> Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to circulate to the commission a number of communications we've received. We have received several hundred letters. They all look to be the same, from my review, in favor of this zone change and most of them are probably associated with the child care network who is the entity wishing to relocate to this site. We also have received two emails in opposition. One from mike and cynthia johnson residents of braveington way. The other from Miss Kim steinmets who is a resident of longwood road. We'll circulate these to you at this time. In the r-3 shown a child care center independent from a church is a conditional use and ask asking the planning mission to act as the board of adjustment since you are reviewing a zone change to also consider the possibility of issuing a conditional use permit for this use should the property be rezoned. Mr. Martin has described well to you the property. The child care center is here and fairly short distance identified as about 35 feet from the man o'war right of way. The parking area would separate that building from the access easement we have seen. Both facilities are outside of the identified flood plain and with the orange line you can see outdoor play area which is one of the reasons the applicant is interested in this site is also outside of the flood plain. The treed area we see in the photograph is generally left as is in the flood plain and to the north and that was very significant in the staff's report to you three weeks ago about this conditional use permit. The applicant will provide transportation to pick owe dome stone wall and wellington elementary schools and proposing care for about 100 children at this location from the staff's estimation that would result in about 50 peek hour trips. The outdoor play area is sized at about 5,000 square feet which well exceeds the ordinance requirements and they anticipate because they're relocating that most of the traffic will come from man o'war boulevard as it does currently to their other facility. Again you May hear different information about traffic. The staff concluded from all that information that the relocation of this child care facility to the subject property will not harm the health, safety or welfare of the existing neighborhood and that all available public facilities are available and adequate for the proposed use. And those are, of course, two of the most important findings when approving a conditional use permit. The staff is recommending approval of the granting of the conditional use permit based on the four reasons that appear in our staff report and on the agenda and in the interest of time I'll not go over those in detail but I would also tell you that the staff is recommending four conditions should the commission approve this conditional use permit. The first is that the property must be rezoned to r-3 zone by the urban county council otherwise any approval this commission grants would be null and void. Secondly, that the property shall be developed in accordance with the development plan you are reviewing this afternoon or according to one that May further be amended in the future by this commission. Thirdly, that the use be operated in accordance with the submitted application an plan. And then finally that all necessary permits including zoning compliance permit, fence permit, certificates of occupancy and of course building permits be provided for this particular use. This concludes the staff presentation. I would be glad to answer any questions from the commission about what we've shared with you this afternoon. >> any questions? Applicant? >> good afternoon. Nicauagua olson on behalf of the applicant taylor made real estate. Jack is here with me mat carter from vision engineering and vanessa from child care network. We are in complete agreement with the staff on their reports for zoning and the conditions associated with it with the conditions on the development plan and with the conditions on the conditional use permit. I also want to put out that the conditional zoning restriction that was offered on this site was offered by the applicants. I know how much I've reviewed the records. I was in the back of the room last year when this matter was before you from a different applicant. The applicant today just recently purchased the property. I understand how much apartments can concern the neighbors. That's why we got from the very beginning, there will not be multifamily on this parcel. It would have to require an entirely new zone change for that to occur. we wanted to make sure very loudly and very clearly that this cannot become apartments in the future with this zone change request. Since we are in complete agreement, I don't want to spend much time. You all have enough earlier today and we have a council meeting coming autopsy and there are enough members of the public that want to talk. I don't want to take much time at all. If you all recall in the committee hearings, the only thing that the neighborhood has really brought up are two left turn movements. The reason why we postponed two weeks ago is because I wanted to make sure that we had a traffic study done to analyze specifically those two traffic movements. They are a left turn off higbee hill on to clays mill and left turn on clays mill to higbee mill. Here is the intersection we are talking about. So it is this turn movement and this turn movement. The reason why I kind of wanted to get at this is I wanted to show you all very quickly kind of what clays mill looks like since the state has redone this. This is a state road mind you. This is not controlled by lexington. We would have to ask the state eats permission to do any type of work on this road whatsoever. What you have right here at this intersection is basically five lanes of traffic. Two lanes going in both ways and a left turn that starts right here for stacking purposes that goes down to man o'war. When the state redid this road, it determined that they would rather have the stacking coming off clays mill than any type of kind of dedicated turn on this on to higbee mill. Also I want to point out and talk about it later, you also notice there is a dedicated right turn right here. So often when we hear about left turn movements what do we hear about? The stacking that results from them causes issues for people trying to take a right turn. That is not the case here on this situation. On either turn movements actually. They're separate dedicated lanes which will help disburse any type of traffic as I indicated to you at the committee hearing and saying all along this application does not have an impact on the traffic. The level of services. [Laughter] They can laugh all they want. Science says otherwise. There is not a single change in the level of services. On higbee mill there is a one-second change or excuse me on yeah, one second change in the A.M. And five second change in the P.M. On clays mill there is no change whatsoever. That should not be surprising because again on clays mill, you have five lanes to disburse traffic and you do not have a stop condition here. So there is not a situation where you would have to deal with people stopping, waiting to turn wher it will basically back up the traffic in typical conditions. It is still free flow on all of the other lanes. Again higbee mill what I already said. You have a dedicated right turn lane. In the traffic study, I meant to hand this out earlier, sorry. The first is the traffic study that was done. In in the traffic study it will the hefl of service but it also shows the number 85% of the traffic that are hitting this intersection right here on higbee mill are going to man o'war. This is not new generation of traffic. This is redirected traffics it is already serving this area. It is just moving a mile down the road. That honestly is all I have to talk about today because I think the staff did an excellent job explaining why any development issues. I do want someone from child care network to come up and kind of give the human side of what is this project that we are asking and kind of you know, why the move is necessitied to the proposed use. >> my name is melissa, I'm the district manager for child care network in kentucky. To give you a little bit of background I've been in child care for eight years now. I got started when I was looking for child care for my own son and I have an elementary education back ground and was looking for child care for him and figured out what child care was all about at that point, and how important it is for parents to be able to trust the people that they drop their children off to every day. That's our most prized possessions as a mother of three. So our company is over 25 years old. We have over 200 locations across the united states. Only four in the state of kentucky. And our mission is to provide a safe, caring and educational environment for children. Safety and quality being the key. When parents drop their parents off to us they want to know that they are in good hands, that what they do throughout the day is going to be safe and that every opportunity that we give them, they are going to be able to enter and exit it safely. Our current location is in the mill pond shopping center off boston road. If you've ever been in there, we sit in the middle of that shopping center and our playground is detached. Behind that shopping center is the only grassy area that was available for a play ground for a child care facility at that time and there is a service road that is in between the actual child care facility and the playground so in order for the children to access that playground, the teachers have to walk them across that service road. It is open to the public. It could be food delivery trucks. It could be people who are driving through kroger or, you know, we have paul mitchell school is over there. Their school students they drive through there all the time. Unfortunately there is no way to block that off because it is a public access service road. And so when we have to take our children across to the playground, we run the risk that somebody is going to be speeding around the corner so we take every precaution that we possibly can as humans to make sure that they make it across safely and luckily we have been very fortunate so far that all of our children have remained safe. Built this building does not meet the safety and quality standards that our company has for our children and so we cannot stay there. We want to provide them with the safest environment that we can, which is why we are looking for a new location and this one is pretty perfect. We serve a majority of the family that are in there. It's an upand coming young family neighborhood. Our current location is there is are a lot of young families in there that need care for that we can provide. We offer six weeks to 12 years of age so we start at teeny tiny babies when moms have to go back to work after maternity leave ends. We provide a full educational program from infancy to toddlers to twos. We then do a pre-kindergarten prep academy and kindergarten and serve after school going from kippedder gart enthrough 12 years of age. We provide transfor those families whose families have to work after the hours of 2:35 when school gets out. We stay open from 6:00 A.M. To 6:00 P.M. To pick up and drop off. Not everybody has an 8:00 to 5:00 job. Some work later, m work earlier and so our hours of pickup of flexible. If they have to be at work early they can drop off early and if not, they can drop them off later. They can stagger their day to what fits their family's need. Safety and security like I said is our number one focus and we just want to be able to provide a fa stilt that has an attached playground so the children can literally walk out their classroom door on to their playground hand have no obstacles in between. That's our goal. If we have to close because like I said this is not, our current facility is not an option for us, we run the risk of losing not only our families which would be highly unfortunate that they then, the children would have to go to another facility to my knowledge there is not enough facilities in this side of town that could accommodate all of the children that we currently serve from these two major neighborhoods here. And consistency is key for children and what we want to do is keep our current teachers and our current families together and just move them a mile down the road. That's our goal and into a safer better facility that we can offer the programs that we do that are successful with the safety key as well. We are not trying to disrupt the neighborhood. I know that that is one of the keys with the traffic. That's not our goal. Our goal is to serve the neighborhood. We want to provide them with a service that they're already in need of, that they're already utilizing from us. We are community partners. We'll partner in any way that we can with the community. We offer family events to where they can come up to the school, we offer grandparents events that where we can do pancakes with grandparents for grandparents day. There are so many things that we want to do to get involved with the community that we are already serving by joining the community. That's one of our goals. I am happy to answer any questions that you have regarding our program, but it's... It's a great program. It's very educational and we do serve a lot of families. Thank you. >> that is pretty much it. I'm happy to answer questions. I did want to point out the traffic study does include the town homes that are not part of the zone change today that are off site that are not built yet but we did not think it would be fair to basically do a traffic study knowing that those are going to be built and not include those as well. So those are part of the impact numbers that I gave you. >> Mr. Drake has a question for you. >> yes, sir. >> marco rubio nicholson, I haven't had time to digest the traffic study but I want to make sure that my interpretation of one item is correct. On the table of the level of services table, existing, it's obvious what that is, is the future data is that what it is supposed to indicate after the development takes place? >> yes, future is once the development is up and running. So that will be after this is open and basically filled. That is what the impact is. That's all we are talking about. >> that's what I thought. I wanted to make sure. >> totally understand. >> any other questions from the commission? I have one. Has this traffic impact study been shared with the staff. >> it has been and they, I mean jimmy is here if you have any questions for him specifically. Not to say that I don't trust the work but I understand that you had a reason why you did this. Okay. No problem. >> it has been and I won't speak for him but I do not believe he had any objections whatsoever to the conclusions, the level of services and the figures that were there. >> thank you. Someone from traffic could someone verify if you've had a chance to review this? Are you in agreement with this? How are you doing? >> Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm senior planning in the transportation planning section of the division of planning. The staff did receive a copy of the traffic impact study that you are talking about today on April 3, 2017. First and foremost this traffic study was not required as part of our zoning ordinance. It did not meet the thresholds in which a traffic study would be required. We received it with not as much time as we normally receive for this. We did look at this to give you kind of a clue as far as the magnitude. Just a daycare itself, it generates about 40% of the amount of traffic that we would consider as a significant amount of traffic that would require a traffic study so it's not... In and of itself, it's not enough of a traffic generator that it's really going have an impact on the intersections. The staff reviewed it. There were a few things that some of the assumptions that we would have questioned if we had had more time and worked with the applicant as far as how the traffic study was designed. But in general, the staff has read through there and agrees with the applicant's conclusions that the traffic generated by this use will not require will not have a significant impact on any of the intersections that they studied. >> now the next part, the citizens how many is there? Is there anyone that wants to speak on behalf of this. if you have a representative, we would like to hear from the representative first. Just come up and give your name. For those who want to speak for. >> I'm alex donahue and I live in beaumont right now and have a six-year-old, four-year-old and seven month old and all of my children have attended child care network. And the reasoning for that is I started off in the wynnedom downs neighborhood and at that time with my first child, my wife and I went, you know, to find as many options where would would send our child for early learning and child care network at the time was and still is leaps and bounds better than what is offered in the current setting that we are at now. Even after our move to beaumont there are still two more daycare facilities that are between my drive from there to child care network. One being a month to month lease right now and is going to be closing down due to a development plan that you all approved here in recent past so that's going to be gone. And the kids are kids which is actually in beaumont is a franchised facility and unfortunately when you tour these places, a franchise facility can do so much but having you know, training from a national level like child care network does, it really shines through when you are going through your tour of the facility and the quality of care your kids are getting, so you know, we drive quite a ways to get there still for their service. the hours of operations for a place like this really works for myself and a lot of the families that attend there because they don't have specific mandatory dropoff times, you know, a lot of daycare facilities you've got to drop off by a certain time or you can't drop your kids off. It's not like bring them when you want and pick them up when you want. And this daycare facility provides that, which is major need for my family especially: I think that a lot of people are opposing this thinking it's a bad thing for traffic and everything for the neighborhood we have been told once it closes down, they're shutting the doors and even with the situation of the playground and having to cross this parking lot, I still want my children to go there because the quality of teachers and staff and what they offer is that much better than our other options in that area. It would be a shame to lose it. The people who work there, and the problem is it would be a shame. I would be very upset and I think that people don't realize how well a group and a company that's been around for 25 years, because majority of daycares don't have 25 years track record in there their, you know, existence. I think they're going to be, the neighborhood is going to be pleasantly surprised at how well they work with the community and what they do for the families, especially in this area, which a big majority are young families like myself who are dual income, both working, got to have somebody that helps with the children so thank you so much. >> thank you. >> anyone else like to speak on behalf for this? And please I forgot to remind you you will see on the monitor we are giving everyone three minutes if they can keep their remarks to that. That would be helpful. >> sure. I'm susan ray. I come to you wearing three hats. I'm mom first and foremost 24 hours seven day aweek job, I'm an educator. I have been an educator for 17 years in lexington and currently I work for the state department of education and one thing that I do is I audit child care facilities that get federal programming and federal funding. Currently I have, well, in the past five years I have been in 197 facilities across the state of kentucky from pikeville to paducah, child care networks facility at mill pond is the only facility that I have currently been in and that I'm aware of that has a detached playground. As I go get my child in the afternoon and cross that busy section, I have had to flag cars down myself that come from paul mitchell that do not obey the traffic laws sometimes. As an educator I have always been taught that it should be about the students and it should be about the students safety not necessarily the adults and I think one thing that we need to look at especially in this situation. That it's not necessarily just about the adults in this situation. It's about the student and the student safety. What do we need in... What is our number one goal as an educator? Is for the children. And so we need to have a better facility, which is going to be at this location not only to prepare our upcoming kindergarteners to be 21st century learners but also to be safe and to be cared for and have the foundation that we need going into an educational setting. There are three types of child care facility. Type one, two and certified. The type one facility accepts the majorities of them will accept c cap funding which has been cut by the state so this particular facility does accept it and it also will transport the children. A lot of the schools in the area, after school programs are completely full. So if it wasn't for this facility, my one-year-old could not attend a facility, I would have to try to hire somebody and hope that I can find somebody good to give that good foundation. I also would not have anybody for my kindergartener to pick up and then her education continues. So I implore you to make this change and to help us continue this education because after all, that's why we are here, we are here for the children. Thank you. >> thank you. Anyone else like to speak on behalf of this particular project in okay. Then we are going move to those people who would like to object. How many would like to speak related to the... Okay. First of all let me ask you, do you first, I would like to hear do you have a community representative? I would like to hear from that person first. Now again we are not going to cut anybody off. Everybody gets a chance if they want to but I would like to say that if you hear something that has already been said, it would be helpful if you would just simply, if you wanted to come up and get on the record just say I agree with them. I think that we get the message in relationship to the certain issues. In other words you don't have to Chad: tell us 50 times but we are. you are here and we appreciate your participating in the process. Ma'am, you can come forward. >> hello again to everyone. Thank you for hearing us here. My name is janet and I live at 704 cumberland road which is in the stone wall area. And we have not only this amount of people who raised their hands to speak, we also are the blue shirts in opposition to the proposed zone change so we raise hands if mostly it's stone wall community association and higbee mill woods neighborhood association that we know are here. There May be other people here, too. What we have put together is basically some of our problems that we have with this. Mainly traffic problems which we've already feel are not good in that area and we feel that they will be overwhelming if we add additional businesses notwithstanding the traffic study. Because we are there, we live with it. We have about six other people to speak the first one is to show you what it is like on that road, higbee mill road, small unimproved road. A video of strolling driving down it. >> we have some handouts. We can share. I have a short video, overview of the current conditions of the .2 miles of higbee hill with regard to the area around the proposed daycare center and the problems people run into when they try to make a left hand turn on to hig bee mill mill road. The video, start basically. >> hold the mic up. It works but have you to hold it up. >> thank you. To get to your bearings, the video will start on cornwell drive and come down past here and make the turn to higbee mill road. It's already starting. We just passed the site of the... What I want to tell you about higbee mill road compared to cornwall. Higbee mill road is only 20 feet bide. If you get too far, you can't even pass on it without even moving. But anyway here we are at the intersection of higbee mill road. Starting to make the turn to the left hand turn. What you are doing is you are going against basically traffic that is coming from the north which is at the next intersection down to the south is man o'war boulevard which is about 400 feet away. So you are running to the trouble that you are running into is that you have all these traffic coming practically at 35 miles per hour just starting to slow down so the spaces between them are smaller. So your chapses of getting out going to the left are reduced because there isn't that amount of time or space to do so. And also going the other direction, people are turning to the right trying to get on to higbee mill road, the conditions of turning on to the road are limited because of the people that are coming from the north. But you have to basically, to make the left hand turn, we can't make the turn now because there are still people coming from the other direction. But part of the problem in regards to this is that you have to have all the lanes clear before you actual will I make the turn and sometimes it's similar to like running a gauntlet trying to cross over there. But this was taken on friday the 17th of March and I think at 5:00 in the afternoon. But you see we finally made the turn and it took us 1:45 seconds to complete the turn. >> so that shows you how it is and now the gentleman that is going to speak is Mr. Pruitt who is a resident of stone wall and he is going to tell you that that is all by design. >> good afternoon. My name is frank pruitt. I'm a resident of cornwall drive. One thing that I would like to clarify real quick is something that was said earlier regarding clays mill road. It is not a state route. The design process that the recent improvements to delays mill road were all decided by the urban county government. The scoping study for this project began in the year 2000. Final designs began roughly 2004 and the construction of just inside new circle to south of man o'war began roughly in I think 2008 or so but it is not a state route. The state funded some of the construction. They did review the plans but it was more of a constructbility review. It was not a design review. They were not part of the design process through the 2000s and what not so all decisions made on clays mill road, the recent construction, any future decisions, would all be made by the urban county government division of engineering or division of traffic. What I have for you here is a letter that I wrote about this. I did not originally think that I would be able to be here today so I wrote the letter for others to read. My schedule changed so I was asked to read it. Sort of an advance apology. It's a little wordy. There is a reason I was not an english major. i tried to write it as concise as I could. If there are any questions or such at the end, I am certainly happy to answer them. The letter goes my name is frank pruitt and I have resided at 3533 cornwall drive in the stone wall neighborhood for approximately 14 years. I am writing to you to voice my opposition both personal and professional regarding the proposed rezoning of the property located at 1585 higbee mill road for proposed child care facility. I drive the clays mill higbee mill and clays mill man o'war intersection as part of my work community in the morning and afternoon peak traffic times. In addition to my personal everyday experience regarding the traffic in this area, I am also a registered civil jer that has performed transportation design work for the kentucky transportation cabinet and also on several urban county government projects. One of these is the recent clays mill road improvements. That have been constructed in the past seven years. I was first involved in the clays mill project as a design consultant during the scoping study which began in 2000 and then as a design cowment served as the project manager lead design engineer and engineer of record for the design and construction of clays mill from south of man o'war north of new circle road. Based on my personal and professional experience and knowledge, I feel that I have a very unique perspective and understanding of the current traffic conditions as well as the history of the design process which culminated in the recent reconfigurations of the clays mill road corridor. The clays mill road improvement section to be construct completed in the fall of 2014 eliminated the left turn lane for northbound clays mill traffic to westbound higbee mill toward 1580 higbee mill road and used it to increase the length of the left turn lane on to man o'war. There was, is not enough space between higbee mill and man o'war boulevard for both left turn lanes serving north and south clays mill traffic. The elimination of the left turn lane on to higbee mill was a significant change to the intersection and the decision to do so was thoroughly and carefully vetted during the clays mill scoping study by the urban county government and incorporated in the final design plans... A very important factor of the decision was the low traffic volume of northbound clays mill traffic making the turning movement. Instead the space was used to accommodate the high traffic volume of southbound clays mill left turns to man o'war. To facilitate on to big bee mill, the left most through lane currently acts as a shared through left turn lane. (Please stand by) I've lived here 28 years. The only thing I wanted to discuss with you guys is clays mill road will flood and there needs to be some kind of access tore way to get the kids, the children out of the daycare should the 100 year flood take place. They can build the bridge but you still got higbee mill that's going to be flooded. You got the old clays mill where the bridge is, but you will have higbee mill and it will flood there and there is no way to get the kids out of the daycare if that does take place other than to let the water go down. The only other option would be to raise higbee mill road and that's the only thing I would want to point out. So. >> I'm not part of the presentation but I'm a new neighbor with the neighborhood association. I'll keep my comments brief. Kevin kid 3569 corn weal drive at the corner of longwood understood cornwall and the reason I come today is for three numbers. 8, 10 and 13. Those are my three kids they play constantly outside at the corner of looningwood and cornwall. There has been a lot of talk and I'm new to this subject matter. I tried to get caught up on it with my neighbors. A lot of talk about traffic studies an impact. An interesting statement for the staff recommendations for why they approved it was granting the requested conditional use will not harm the public health safety or welfare and not adversely affect the character or character of the subject or surrounding properties. I do have to disagree with that. One thing that wasn't taken into consideration, the neighbors are focusing on one intersection and that's clays mill and higbee mill but no one is taking into consideration most people traverse into town to work. When they come back out of work they take the major thoroughfares one is a cut through my primary street cornwall comes from wellington, another cut through off of harrodsburg road is wellington. That is a major concern for me because I have children that play outside. I have the neighbors across the street that have two other kids as well. Neighbors next to me. They have four. One thing interesting about my neighborhood is not both sides of the street do not have sidewalks. Some sides of the street have sidewalks, particularly mine, mine have no sidewalks. My house has no sidewalks in the front or the side. My kids don't have a sidewalk to walk on when you are increasing traffic flow. One thing that wasn't mentioned I have noticed when the traffic increases down cornwall and I promise you it will because it's a primary cut through to wellington and the other intersections that the previous gentleman mentioned. There are only two stop signs controlling the entire flow of traffic on cornwall. In the morngs and in the afternoons, for stone wall elementary which is also full of children coming to and from on foot, on bike, and in car, actually lines up because there is no place for them to go. They align in the middle of the street. They align along the side of the to the right of the street so when you are having to pass that school, you are actually almost crossing into the middle of the traffic lane to just pass the traffic that is lined up to drop their kids off to and from. This is what I would like to say. This neighborhood, I have grown up here my entire life. I'm a resident of this city, fantastic city. This is neighborhood is a cornerstone for this city. It has been a model neighborhood ever since I was growing up. It deserves the respect of this representation. There are serious and grave concerns and I appreciate the plight of people that are facing child care issues this is not about them. I'm sorry for that. This is about our neighborhood and our children just as much and I assure you this. This is a bigger picture than the intersection at higbee mill and clays mill road. All this traffic is coming down in front of my street because now that it's been approved for the town homes, which was very unfortunate, town homes to be increased, you have doubled the traffic flow. I assure you they will not go higbee mill. That's a mute point in a way. They are going to come right through the heart of our neighborhood and that is cornwall drive right in front of my house where there are no sidewalks and my children play. I appreciate your time. I'm sorry for your plight that you face with your kids but those are my concerns. Thank you for listening. >> thank you. Actually your official time is over but I understand you have been very patient and you have been here so I'm going to... I think the idea of the traffic, I think we got the message on that one, if there is something else new that you have that would be good. >> well we have a couple of possible fixes. >> I'm carol pfeiffer I am the curb President Of the current President Of the stone wall neighborhood association. We've heard a lot about the traffic concerns. I think it's interesting to note that the developer and taf have both stated the daycare customers are located south of our subdivision. They are not in our subdivision. So the main way they're going to get to the new daycare would be from clays mill on to higbee mill. And so I want to say that we see a way for additional conditions some mentioned by the staff, that would make the proposed zone change better for public safety and pedestrian safety. They are to alleviate the traffic congestion in the mode vicinity of the daycare to provide for pedestrian safety with sidewalks and then the most important is to provide for unencumbered access of emergency vehicles to the site higbee is a rural road way as you heard. Access to the daycare will be solely from higbee mill road to the existing lane that they talked about the old higbee mill. There are no shoulders on higbee mill and no way to get over to the right should an emergency vehicle need to come into the site. The staff reports that road widening of the 520 linear feet road frontage on the applicant's property is not proposed by the applicant according to the submitted papers before you but it can be required by this planning commission given the proposed commercial use of the property. The improvement of higbee mill road along the applicant's property at 1580 higbee mill should be added as a condition to the zone change request if ultimately approved by the commission. This May help alleviate congestion associated with travel into and out of the daycare and provide for pedestrian safety and in front of their property. The staff also reports that they will utilize the existing lane off higbee mill road and they intend to upgrade it, improve it and build a small parking lot accessible from the pavement for access to the daycare. Half of this lane, eight feet of this 16-foot lane is a dedicated driveway to the home at 1400 higbee mill road. Only eight feet is currently public right of way. A staff reports that there is a significant flood plain area in the area and that during extreme severe storm events May be an issue in crossing if not improved. The lane that will be used is only 16-foot wide and that the existing crossing has a small concrete lip wall on either way. Most importantly the bridge that is in existence right now is limited to a load of 10 tons as you can see. A fire truck weighs between 16 and 35-tons depending on how it's outfitted. And is typically 10 feet wide. In addition, garbage trucks will now have to transverse this to get the garbage from the daycare whereas the property owner is required now to pull his cans out to higbee mill road. Garbage trucks weigh between 15-24 tons empty depending on their size. In addition delivery truck will be using the lane in order to deliver food and supplies to the daycare. We would ask a requirement be made to have the developer upgrade and widen the lane and construct associated bridge rated for emergency vehicles and other vehicles traveling into and out of the daycare should you all approve the zone change request. If there is an emergency, there is also no ability to get over to the right. There is a drainage dij on this side and coming out a drainage ditch on the other side and the property owners of 1400 of the lane or higbee mill for a vehicle to pass. In addition, as you heard, ccn use many school buses type a school buses to transfer children from stone wall picodome, clays mill and they will be traveling on this lane and using the crossing numerous times a day so we would ask that safe passage to and from the daycare for all users and for emergency vehicles be provided with conditions. Thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commission my name is tracey starns and live at 720 longwood road. As previously stated the existence of the higbee mill road is not suitable for additional traffic and congestion. The neighborhood would just like to see postponement of any zone change until all of higbee mill road is improved by the lexington fayette county government or the developer. Thank you. >> and I'm the finalizer. We are here because of safety first. That is our whole idea of being here. What we've established you already know left turns are not easy from higbee mill or from clays mill. Long trips from the daycare through the neighborhood are not ideal. The fema map shows a flooding danger. We do expect increased traffic because of a new business in our area but we don't really want to be inundated with traffic and we think what May happen is it will become excessive. We did find the staff proposals and recommendations very helpful and we thought that they should be included as carol described. And the way that we think you should fix higbee mill road to make it safe for anything and everything, to make this whole thing work is to make higbee mill road safe. Safety first for all. Thank you for listening. >> thank you. And as I indicated before, you went beyond your time limit but you all have been so patient to be here and quite frankly as it relates to the kinds of things that come from the community, we are a little bit more forgiving to get the community in because we understand the passion because we all live in communities up here ourselves and so we understand some of these issues. The process now says that the petitioner has an opportunity to rebutt and then we are going to come back to the community for another opportunity if you want to capsulize and stay within the five-minute timeframe. Thank you. >> and I appreciate the neighborhood coming up here and I appreciate their recommendations especially from Miss Pfeiffer at the very end. I appreciate his chair. First and foremost we are improving higbee mill. It is being expanded out to 22 feet for a majority of this property. We are also putting sidewalks on higbee mill and improving the bridge and the access. The access is going to 24 feet. It is a new bridge. Entirely outside of the fema flood plain. That's a requirement and the storm water manual is part of the development plan process. I'm here on the record. We are building a new bridge. i believe it is 24 feet wide. I hope that that relieves any concerns about emergency vehicles, about the school buses about any type of widening of higbee mill and also for sidewalks. With regards to video that was shown. I have to point out there was no stacking there. He was the first car that showed up to take a left turn. I also don't know about texting and driving but video and driving I'm very impressed and I also in that video there is only one car that took a left turn off clays mill and it took him approximately two seconds. The count slowed that the weight was -- the wait was 20 to 25 seconds. It was measured in A.M. And P.M. For two hours in each. That was the average count. I don't know what else to tell you all. The pruitt letter that was given. At least the one shown up on the screen, I believe that was from last year because they were talking about apartments for a large majority of that. I do have to point out that while he said he was not here to fight development, he is not antidevelopment, he did say any traffic added to this intersection will cause chaos. That means no development for this site. That's exactly what that means. We are adding 12 cars to take a left turn at this point, six cars are going taking the left off higbee mill. Why is that? And I notice that they didn't point out the obvious in all of the options is because man o'war is.1 miles away. 85% of all traffic goes to man o'war. With regards to the limited access neighborhood with limited access. You know why it has limited access? Because they fought the connection to man o' war. That's why it has limited access. Let's see. Again the 100 year flood plain, building is entirely outside of the 100 year flood plain. We are building the bridge to make sure that it is outside of the 100 year flood plain so I don't believe there are any fema issues whatsoever. And I got to pointed this out. Last time what did we hear from the staff in they were concerned about density on the kind of neighborhood side of this parcel. The neighbors were concerned about apartments and all of the typical impacts that the apartments have in neighborhood's eyes. They're also worried about traffic. We did everything we could. We specifically ruled out apartments entirely. We moved this project all the way to the other side of the creek, not the neighborhood side of the creek. And we did a very low traffic generator. There is only so much we can do. This is an infill site. This is a tough site. This is a site that is 50% flood plain. that doesn't mean it's inappropriate for development. It means it's the right development. We are doing everything we can to make sure that this is the right development. We are doing a residential use. If you all remember just up the street recently there was a zone change to p-1 on clays mill. We chose to go residential to make sure that this stays residential. That is really all have I to say. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have May any. >> we'lly get back to you if we have any questions. Right now the neighborhood as another five minutes if you want to make another point or emphasize. That doesn't mean have you to use all the five but you got up to. >> I know. I'm sorry. Had my reputation was impugned. Boo we did not take that video with one driver. I mean I was driving my husband was filming we do not video and drive. We do not text and drive. Okay. Because that's illegal. What date was the study done... It was submitted on the third of April which is a monday. ... Thursday. No, 23rd was when we were supposed to be here last time. >> it watts because school was in session. >> okay. Let's move it along here. >> yes, sir. i think it was a two-day study, correct? I would ask that if we were going to talk about studies and emphasize that we only increase it by 12 cars a day or whatever we are claiming would I ask that the study be moved and evaluate the off coming traffic from man o'war to from harrodsburg road to wellington hence coming to cornwall. I don't have the actual picture up or the capability to do that but if you all... What I want you to really grasp here is the impact that this does have on the neighborhoods traffic flow and safety. Where he has that it ends at 1.8 miles there, if you look there, directly if you take a left. That's wellington way. If you take a left on that, that takes you right to hirdzburg road. Harrodsburg r50d, clays mill road, those two roads become the major thoroughfare for everyone that works south predominantly all these people will work south of this location. They will hence cut through to cornwall drive. Cornwall drive will be the thoroughfare directly through the neighborhood. That's the heart beat of the neighborhood. That drive right there. So if you want talk about studies and traffic flow you probably need to go down to wellington way at cornwall drive and see the impact that has because I promise you this. When you put residential neighborhood in there, or the town homes in there on top of everybody coming to pick up their kids, it will definitely have a significant impact. Thank you. >> just want to reiterate a few of the points I mentioned earlier. 85% of the traffic that will go to man o'war is an auption is. The additional traffic that they're going to be making the different turning movements 12, six that's at the end of the day, that is an assumption. Now that assumption May end up being correct but we are not going to know that until it actually happens so it is assumption based. With regards to the letter that I read, it does have, it is a new letter. It does have some similarities to things I have sent to the planning comights for past zoning issues on higbee mill. But just to reiterate, what I talked about the clays mill road improvements were at the expense to some degree to the functional building of the clays mill higbee mill intersection. Those decisions were made. It's not the ideal situation. With the existing traffic, the intersection is functional. My concerns with the town homes that are already zoned for on the other property, they are going to strain that intersection to some degree. I mean but it's zoned for those. Nothing to say about it. So I have concerns that they will definitely strain that intersection. When you add in the additional traffic from another proposed facility, such as a child care, then I have very, very serious concerns about that. i would like to reiterate and not trying to toot my own horn but based on my personal experiences of driving the corridor every day of my I designed the road so I know the history of it. I know the thought processes. I know the decisions that were made, why they were made. I have designed the road. Not trying to toot my own horn but I don't really think there is too many people in this city that have a more better understanding of the clays mill road corridor and particularly this area that we are talking about than I do. Thank you. >> thank you. You have a few seconds. >> give us your name. >> david marler. 724 looningwood road and I back up to the properties we are talking about through here. One thing that we haven't discussed is the businesses that we have on the corner of higbee mill and clays mill road. We have what we always call for those who have lived out here for a while, the gte building which is a wind stream telephone company, we have that on one corner that has an exit on clays mill road and an exit on higbee mill road. We also have a new business coming in that we are not too fond of, I guess coming in is on the first corner of clays mill and higbee mill road. A mulch company. Now this mulch company came from man o'war and nicholasville road. This mulch company as far as we know will be bringing in truck loads of mulch for resell. They also had mulch grinding equipment and we are talking about things almost as big a round as this room where they can put a tree in and make mulch out of it and have equipment you the canning up rock and dirt and mixing it and making it into dirt and selling dirt at this corner. This corner going to be very busy which just trucking businesses that have the opportunity to come in and out of there on that corner before the driveway going up to where the proposed daycare center is. >> thank you. Now let me go to... Let me ask the staff. Do you have a rebutal? Okay no. Staff rebuttal. Let me ask the commission. Do you have any additional questions from the applicants or citizens? >> I have a question for staff I think. >> she has a question for staff. >> I have a question for staff. I don't think we've approved or seen anything on that clays mill road corner there where they're talking about the mulch or that. We haven't seen anything on that. We don't really know anything about that do we? >> and I don't believe the planning commission will see anything on that. There has been preliminary discussions that they are going to file with the board of adjustment. They have not done so as of today. So it will be heard by the board of adjustment, it will be a public hearing in front of the board of adjustment and the public will have the opportunity to speak to their concerns at the board of adjustment. >> Mr. Cravens. >> tom, come back. Aare some of the streets in stone wall collector streets? >> yes, sir. There are collector streets in stone wall, wellington is a collector, brafington May be. I haven't looked in a while. >> is it cornwall or... >> honestly I would have to look to double check to be sure. I haven't... I haven't looked at the entire neighborhood. >> are they wide streets. >> they're wide, yes, sir. I might add that our local standards for local street is 23 feet of width. Higbee mill actually does match a rural local street at 20 feet because that's what it was for many, many years obviously, a rural street. >> any other questions? Okay thank you, Mr. Martin. Now here what is I'm going to do. I'm going to give you one more minute and I'm going back to the community. I just want you to know they're going to get the last word here. >> that was all I wanted to point out is that that has to go before the board traffic will be talked about on that site whether it's appropriate. >> that's fine. Again I will give the community one last word if you have autoy got one. You got one minute. >> I felt a little rushed the last time I came up on the flood plain but if you look at the flad map, higbee mill road is in the flood plain. There is nothing that the daycare can do to fix that. There is nothing they can do to fix that. They can make a bridge that is higher than the flood plain that's fine but the bridge goes on to higbee mill road and there is no way to get to that daycare off higbee mill road because of the flood plain. He has misled you. >> thank you. Now ladies and gentlemen iement going to close the process of the meeting and now bring it back to the commission and we'll do our discussions here and then we'll go from there. So the meeting is now closed to the audience and we are now back to the commission. Any questions? >> no questions. I just wanted to say thank you to the neighbors for a fine presentation and they have done a lot of research. They're adamant about their purpose and it's going to be a tough decision because I see it as over in the old site we've got toddlers or what have you crossing an unsafe area and in the proposed new site we've got the same toddlers in the car with their parents taking equal risk. So it's a waity decision at this point. Thank you. >> there was a lot of talk about traffic. But I'm looking at these maps, I think that's why I asked about the collector streets. It looks like there are many ways in and out of higbee mill and stone wall and I mean you all go in and out all those intersections and I'm not convinced that daycare is going to generate enough traffic based on the one report we have, so that's where I am on that. >> any other comments? If not then... >> Mr. Penn. >> I understand why you were upset with the townhouses but that has already been done. What my concern here today is that what this is a rhetorical question on my part. I'm thinking about what could you do with this piece of property that have a lighter impact because more development more townhouses, apartments, whatever would go in there would certainly make more traffic and more density than what this is going to make. And as we live in this city, we are trying to find infill projects that make sense that work. And I'm not been able to think of something sitting here that we can zone that property to that would have a lesser impact than what is being proposed here and that's what is going through my mind at this time. >> Mr. Owens. >> I can appreciate everyone coming down and their concern. Traffic really seems to be the main issue. What I've heard is that safety wise higbee mill road has been improved, the old access, clays mill road is being improved and that helps all the way around as far as safety is concerned. I would dare say that at m point in time someone going into cornwall neighborhood is probably going to use this daycare center. I've got to think that that is going to happen at some point in time. So yeah, there is going to be traffic in the neighborhood. As far as the traffic, the applicant did a traffic study sometimes I look at those things with a grain of salt because the applicant is doing it and trying to make numbers work however it works for them. But our own staff is looking at it and stay saying that it does work as well so, you know, I appreciate it however I'm going to be voting in favor of this. >> anyone else on the commission. If not then we are ready to take a vote or to vote to approve or disapprove and let me once again reflecting from the chair's position, the appreciation I have for the community coming in. I guess I share your understanding because I have been exactly where you have been and at the same time I understand the point that my colleague made about infill development. There are probably lots of things that could go in there that probably would be actually worse than essentially what you are getting now but any how I wanted to express our appreciation again for the time that you've spent and for the presentation that you've made. Thank you, with that, the chair is reat ready to entertain a motion for or against. >> we got three screens out over here. >> y'all didn't feed the mouse. >> we tried like crazy. We can do it voice vote. Someone make a motion and we'll second and then we'll go from there. >> I would be glad to. Mr. Chair I move for approval of pln-mar-17-6 for the reasons noted by staff but also with the recommended conditional zoning restrictions. >> second. >> properly moved and seconded that we approve pln-mar-17-6 taylormade real estate llc. Any other discussion on the motion in. >> I've got one thing. >> okay. >> discussion on the motion from Mr. Penn. >> and this is just for the neighborhood. That widening of higbee mill road, the bridge and all that, that is on the development plan so that doesn't need to be a condition. It's on the development plan so either way this goes, I want you to know that that is on the development plan. >> no other discussion points I'll call for the vote. All those in favor I'm it's back up on my screen. You all... >> then we'll do it about I show of hands. All nose favor of the motion stated, please raise your hand. Your right hand. Okay. Motion carries. Next we'll go to the requested conditional use Mr. Berkeley would you like to continue with that. >> conditional use in. >> yeah, I thought I made that part of the motion but we need that separate? >> yeah, we need three separate motions. >> I move for approval of the conditional use zoning restriction multifamily residential dwelling shall not be permitted. >> moves to approve the conditional use seconded. Any other discussion on the motion? Please raise your right hand in favor of the motion. Opposed left hand. Motion carries. Got one more. And that is on the development plan. >> I don't see the actual number of that. >> 17-11. >> that's what I thought. All right. Move for approval of plan-mjdp-17-11 within the 11 conditions noted by staff. >> if I May, two of those conditions are to be resolved at time of final development plan. The access... >> yes, thank you. >> okay. Thank you. >> we'll add that to the motion. >> that's fine. >> add that to the motion. Second from Miss Mundy. Moves approval of the pln-mjdp-17-11 subdivision. Noting the fact that the two, 10, 11 will be resolved at the final development plan. Any other discussion. Seeing none please raise your right hand for those in favor. Opposed left hand. Ayes have it. thank you all very much. We got one other item I think on the agenda and it comes from commission items Mr. Duncan, you are tom one here. We have passed out the amendment to you to show some changes that reflect canceling the April and May work sessions as scheduled. But rescheduling additional work sessions at different dates and one at a different place than ordinary. Please read that in and consider that. >> Mr. Smith has already got the formal motion and he will read that and then we can second it. Mr. Smith. >> okay. Mr. Chair, I move to amend the planning commission's official meeting and filing schedule for 2017 as follows: scheduling a planning commission work session on wednesday April 26 at 1:30 in the phoenix building. Seventh floor. Schedule planning commission work session on wednesday May 3, wednesday May 10, May 24 all at 1:30 in the phoenix building third floor. And to cancel the previously scheduled work session thursday April 20 and thursday May 18 and further move to change the location of the zoning hearing May 25 at 1:30 to the phoenix building. Third floor so moved. >> second. >> properly moved by Mr. Joseph smith and second by Miss Carolyn richardson that we revise the meeting and cancellation. You heard the motion. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none would you please vote? Raise your right hand if you are all in agreement. Left hand to vote nay if not. Would I put one provision on that if I don't get a parking place, I will not be here. I want that to be in the record we are still concerned about our parking places. Thank you. Any other business to come before this body? If not without objection the meeting is adjourned.