# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - May 11, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 11, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4252 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4252?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-05-11 - **Last revised**: May 11, 2017 - **Length**: 10,591 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on May 11, 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 chair. The commission addressed 11 agenda items during the session, taking a total of 12 votes on various development proposals and zoning matters throughout the city. No public comments were heard during this meeting. The commission's work resulted in mixed outcomes for the development projects under consideration. Three items received approval: Fritz Farm (Summit Lexington) amendment, Beaumont Farm Unit 1 Block B Section 3 Lot 3 (Texas Roadhouse) amendment, and the Old Frankfort Pike Scenic Viewing Area. However, the majority of items faced delays, with six proposals being postponed including Reserve at Walnut Grove, Ethington & Ethington Property Tract 1, South Broadway Place (Phases IIA & III) Lynn Grove Addition amendment, two separate RML-Citation (Hillenmeyer Interest, Ltd.) items, and the KMJR, LLC zone map amendment. One item, the Lexington Mall (CrossFit Maximus) amendment #21, was withdrawn from consideration, while the Ellerslie Place Lots 2 & 2A (The Midlands) amendment was tabled for future discussion. The meeting demonstrated the commission's careful deliberation process, with more items requiring additional time for review than receiving immediate approval, reflecting the complex nature of urban development planning in Lexington. ## Attendance All members were present at the meeting held on May 11, 2017. **Present:** • Bill Wilson • Carolyn Richardson • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Joseph Smith • Will Berkley • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • David Drake • Mike Cravens • Patrick Brewer **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The commission conducted 12 votes during the May 11, 2017 meeting, with all 11 members present and participating. **Administrative Items** The meeting began with unanimous approval of the April 13, 2017 meeting minutes [timestamp: 00:30], motioned by Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Karen Mundy. **Withdrawals and Postponements** Several items were removed from consideration. PLN-MJDP-17-00006 (LEXINGTON MALL CROSSFIT MAXIMUS AMD #21) was unanimously withdrawn [timestamp: 01:30] on motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Karen Mundy. Six items were postponed unanimously: - PLN-MNDP-17-00022 (RESERVE AT WALNUT GROVE) [timestamp: 03:00], with the condition of posting signage on the property - PLN-MJDP-17-00015 (ETHINGTON & ETHINGTON PROPERTY, TRACT 1) [timestamp: 05:00] - DP 2014-64 (SOUTH BROADWAY PLACE PHASES IIA & III) [timestamp: 07:00] - PLN-MJSUB-17-00026 (RML-CITATION HILLENMEYER INTEREST) [timestamp: 09:00] - PLN-MJDP-17-00042 (RML-CITATION HILLENMEYER INTEREST) [timestamp: 11:00] - PLN-MAR-17-00018 (KMJR, LLC zone map amendment) [timestamp: 13:00] **Approvals** PLN-MJSUB-17-00024 (FRITZ FARM SUMMIT LEXINGTON AMD) passed unanimously [timestamp: 15:00] on motion by Patrick Brewer, subject to agenda conditions. PLN-MJDP-17-00029 (BEAUMONT FARM TEXAS ROADHOUSE AMD) passed 6-4 [timestamp: 17:00] on motion by Mike Cravens. Voting yes: Wilson, Richardson, Mundy, Smith, Drake, and Cravens. Voting no: Plumlee, Berkley, Owens, and Penn. The approval included 19 staff conditions. PFR 2017-3 (OLD FRANKFORT PIKE SCENIC VIEWING AREA) passed 9-2 [timestamp: 21:00] on motion by Mike Owens. Frank Penn and Mike Cravens voted against the proposal, which was approved subject to design feature review. **Continuances** PLN-MJDP-17-00043 (ELLERSLIE PLACE THE MIDLANDS AMD) was continued to June 8, 2017 by a 10-0 vote [timestamp: 19:00], with Mike Cravens absent for this vote. ## Contested Items Two items generated significant discussion and disagreement during this meeting. **ELLERSLIE PLACE, LOTS 2 & 2A (THE MIDLANDS) (AMD)** This subdivision amendment faced a procedural dispute that resulted in the item being tabled. The primary concern centered on the absence of the applicant at the Subdivision Committee meeting, which raised questions about proper process and representation. Council members expressed concerns about moving forward with deliberations when the applicant was not present to address questions or provide clarification on the proposal. The procedural nature of this dispute led to the decision to postpone consideration of the item until proper representation could be ensured. **OLD FRANKFORT PIKE SCENIC VIEWING AREA** This proposal for a scenic viewing area along Old Frankfort Pike generated considerable debate before ultimately passing with a 9-2 vote. The split vote reflected divided opinions among council members regarding specific aspects of the project. Concerns were raised about both the design elements of the proposed viewing area and potential safety issues that could arise from its implementation. Despite these reservations expressed by some members, the majority of the council supported moving forward with the scenic viewing area project. The 9-2 vote margin indicates that while there was opposition, a substantial majority of council members felt the benefits of the scenic viewing area outweighed the concerns raised during discussion. The safety and design issues that prompted the dissenting votes were not sufficient to derail the project, though they likely influenced the final implementation requirements or conditions attached to the approval. Both contested items highlight different types of challenges that can arise in municipal planning processes - procedural issues that can delay consideration and substantive policy disagreements that result in split votes among elected officials. ## LEXINGTON MALL (CROSSFIT MAXIMUS) (AMD #21) [timestamp: 01:30] The agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00006 regarding the Lexington Mall (CrossFit Maximus) Amendment #21 was withdrawn by the applicant before discussion could take place. Rich Murphy addressed the withdrawal during the meeting. The proposed amendment would have added 20,000 square feet of buildable area to the existing development and revised the parking requirements for the project. No debate or discussion occurred regarding the merits of the amendment since the applicant chose to withdraw the item prior to presentation. The withdrawal meant that the proposed changes to add significant buildable area and modify parking arrangements would not move forward at this time. The outcome was a formal withdrawal of the application, removing it from further consideration by the planning body. ## RESERVE AT WALNUT GROVE [timestamp: 03:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MNDP-17-00022 regarding the Reserve at Walnut Grove development. Rory Kahly served as a key speaker during the discussion. The primary issue addressed was a significant change to the development's trail system. The trail system currently proposed differs substantially from what the Planning Commission approved for this development approximately ten years ago. This discrepancy between the original approval and the current proposal became a focal point of the discussion. Before detailed consideration of the trail system changes could proceed, the applicant requested a one-month postponement of the agenda item. The Commission granted this request, allowing additional time for the applicant to address the concerns or provide further clarification on the proposed modifications. The postponement provides an opportunity for the applicant to reconcile the differences between the originally approved trail system and the current proposal, or to provide justification for the substantial changes that have been made to this aspect of the development plan. The item will return to the Planning Commission for consideration at a future meeting, giving all parties time to prepare for a more comprehensive review of the modified trail system proposal. ## ETHINGTON & ETHINGTON PROPERTY, TRACT 1 [timestamp: 05:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00015 regarding the Ethington & Ethington Property, Tract 1 development proposal. Nick Nicholson, representing the applicant, addressed the commission and requested a one-month postponement of the item. The postponement was sought to allow additional time to address outstanding issues with the development proposal. During the brief discussion, commissioners raised questions about two specific aspects of the project: • **Public infrastructure timing** - Concerns were expressed regarding the scheduling and coordination of public infrastructure improvements related to the development • **Tree preservation plan** - Questions arose about the adequacy and implementation details of the proposed tree preservation measures for the site The commission did not engage in extensive debate on the merits of the development proposal itself, given the applicant's request for additional time to address the identified concerns. **Outcome:** The commission granted the applicant's request and postponed consideration of PLN-MJDP-17-00015 for one month. This postponement will allow the applicant to work with staff to resolve the questions regarding public infrastructure timing and refine the tree preservation plan before returning to the commission for full consideration of the development proposal. The item will be rescheduled for a future meeting once the applicant has addressed the outstanding issues and is ready to proceed with the review process. ## SOUTH BROADWAY PLACE (PHASES IIA & III), LYNN GROVE ADDITION (AMD) [timestamp: 07:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item DP 2014-64, an amendment to the South Broadway Place development in the Lynn Grove Addition. The proposed amendment seeks to revise the development of the Lynn Grove Addition Townhouse (R-1T) area and redevelopment of R-4 areas within the Lynn Grove Addition for Phases IIA and III of the South Broadway Place project. Tony Barrett spoke on behalf of the applicant during the brief discussion of this item. The primary focus of the meeting was a procedural matter rather than substantive review of the development plans. The applicant requested a two-week postponement of the agenda item to allow adequate time for proper advertising requirements to be met. No detailed presentation of the development amendment was made, nor were there any substantive discussions about the merits of the proposed changes to the townhouse and R-4 residential areas. The Planning Commission granted the applicant's request for postponement without opposition. The item will return to a future meeting agenda once the proper advertising procedures have been completed, allowing for full public notice and review of the proposed amendments to the South Broadway Place development phases. ## RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) [timestamp: 09:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJSUB-17-00026, a development proposal by Hillenmeyer Interest, Ltd. Matt Carter served as a key speaker during the discussion of this item. The applicant requested a one-month postponement of the review process. Staff expressed ongoing concerns regarding two critical aspects of the development proposal: • **Infrastructure timing and provision**: Staff raised issues about when and how the required public infrastructure would be delivered as part of the development • **Missing documentation**: The required 30% Infrastructure Report had not yet been submitted by the applicant, representing a significant gap in the review materials These staff concerns highlighted fundamental questions about the project's readiness for commission review and the developer's ability to meet municipal infrastructure requirements. The absence of the 30% Infrastructure Report was particularly notable, as this document typically provides essential details about proposed utilities, roads, and other public improvements necessary for the development. Given the applicant's postponement request and the outstanding issues identified by staff, the Planning Commission agreed to postpone consideration of the RML-Citation proposal. This postponement allows the applicant additional time to address the infrastructure concerns and submit the required 30% Infrastructure Report before returning to the commission for review. The postponement ensures that when the item returns for consideration, the commission will have complete documentation and staff will have had adequate time to review all infrastructure-related aspects of the proposal. ## RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) [timestamp: 11:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00042, a development proposal submitted by Hillenmeyer Interest, Ltd. Matt Carter addressed the commission regarding this item. The applicant requested a one-month postponement of the consideration of their proposal. Prior to the meeting, the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the application and recommended approval, subject to conditions. However, the postponement request took precedence over moving forward with the committee's recommendation at this time. The commission granted the applicant's request for postponement. The item was deferred for one month, allowing the applicant additional time to address any outstanding issues or concerns before returning to the Planning Commission for consideration. No substantive discussion of the merits of the development proposal occurred during this meeting due to the postponement request. The specific conditions recommended by the Subdivision Committee were not detailed in the proceedings, as the item will be revisited at a future meeting when the applicant is ready to proceed. ## KMJR, LLC zone map amendment [timestamp: 13:00] The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-MAR-17-00018, a zone map amendment request submitted by KMJR, LLC. However, the item did not proceed to full discussion due to a procedural issue identified by planning staff. Traci Wade, representing the planning staff, requested that the commission postpone consideration of the zone map amendment. Wade explained that staff needed additional time to ensure proper zone change posting had been completed at the subject property, which is a required step in the zone amendment process. The postponement request was made to allow staff to fulfill the proper notification and posting requirements before the commission could move forward with reviewing the merits of the proposed zone change. This type of procedural postponement is standard practice when administrative requirements have not been fully satisfied prior to a scheduled hearing. The applicant, KMJR, LLC, was present and agreed to staff's request for postponement. No objections were raised to delaying consideration of the zone map amendment until the proper posting procedures could be completed. The commission accepted the staff recommendation and postponed the item without further discussion of the substance of the proposed zone change. The postponement allows staff to complete the necessary administrative steps while ensuring the application process follows proper legal procedures for zone map amendments. ## FRITZ FARM (SUMMIT LEXINGTON) (AMD) [timestamp: 15:00] The Planning Commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJSUB-17-00024, an amendment to the Fritz Farm (Summit Lexington) development. The purpose of this amendment was to subdivide a portion of Tract A to create a separate tract (Tract F) designated for hotel development. Bill Sallee presented the proposal to the commission. The amendment involved reconfiguring the existing tract boundaries within the Fritz Farm development to accommodate the planned hotel use on the newly created Tract F. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this amendment and recommended approval, subject to specific conditions. The commission considered the committee's recommendation and the technical aspects of the subdivision amendment. The Planning Commission approved the Fritz Farm amendment, allowing the subdivision of Tract A to proceed with the creation of Tract F for hotel development. The approval was granted subject to the conditions recommended by the Subdivision Committee. ## BEAUMONT FARM, UNIT 1, BLK B, SEC. 3, LOT 3 (TEXAS ROADHOUSE) (AMD) [timestamp: 17:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00029, an amendment for Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Block B, Section 3, Lot 3, which involves a Texas Roadhouse development. The purpose of this amendment was to add buildable area to the existing development plan. Chris Bronczyk served as the key speaker for this item, presenting the amendment request to the commission members. The item had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which recommended postponement due to no representation at their meeting. Despite this committee recommendation, staff provided their own analysis and recommended approval of the amendment with 19 conditions attached. The commission ultimately approved the amendment, overriding the Subdivision Committee's postponement recommendation in favor of the staff recommendation. The approval came with the 19 conditions as outlined by staff, which would govern the additional buildable area being added to the Texas Roadhouse development site. This amendment represents a modification to an existing development plan rather than a new project, specifically focused on expanding the developable area within the designated lot in the Beaumont Farm subdivision. ## ELLERSLIE PLACE, LOTS 2 & 2A (THE MIDLANDS) (AMD) [timestamp: 19:00] The planning committee reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00043, an amendment for Ellerslie Place development in The Midlands area involving Lots 2 and 2A. Chris Bronczyk presented the proposed amendment, which seeks to make several significant changes to the previously approved development plan. The amendment would increase the unit size while decreasing the total number of units on Lot 2. Conversely, the proposal calls for increasing the number of units on Lot 2A. The amendment also includes a revised site layout for the proposed attached single family residential development planned for lots 32-48. Additionally, the proposal encompasses a commercial/apartment development component on the proposed Lot 2A. These changes represent a substantial modification to the original development concept, affecting both the residential density and the overall site configuration. The amendment appears to redistribute units between the two lots while also incorporating mixed-use elements through the commercial/apartment component. Following the presentation and discussion, the committee decided to table the item rather than proceed with a decision at this meeting. This outcome suggests that additional information, review, or consideration may be needed before the amendment can be approved or denied. The tabling of this significant development amendment indicates the committee's need for further deliberation on the proposed changes to unit distribution, site layout, and the introduction of commercial elements to what was previously planned as a residential development. ## OLD FRANKFORT PIKE SCENIC VIEWING AREA [timestamp: 21:00] The meeting addressed proposal PFR 2017-3 for the Old Frankfort Pike Scenic Viewing Area project. Casey Kaucher presented the proposal to design and build a visitor viewing area at the beginning of the Old Frankfort Pike Scenic Byway. The project aims to create a designated space where visitors can stop and appreciate the scenic qualities of the byway before continuing their journey. Staff provided a recommendation for approval of the proposal, indicating general support for the concept and its potential benefits for tourism and visitor experience along the scenic route. However, staff noted that the design features of the proposed viewing area would require a second review. This suggests that while the overall concept was deemed acceptable, specific elements of the design needed further consideration or refinement before final implementation could proceed. The proposal was approved by the meeting participants, allowing the project to move forward with the understanding that design details would be revisited in subsequent reviews. This approval represents support for enhancing visitor amenities along Old Frankfort Pike while ensuring that the final design meets appropriate standards and requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of the minutes of the April 13, 2017, meeting - **PLN-MJDP-17-00006** — withdrawn (11-0): Withdrawal of LEXINGTON MALL (CROSSFIT MAXIMUS) (AMD #21) - **PLN-MNDP-17-00022** — postponed (11-0): Postponement of RESERVE AT WALNUT GROVE - **PLN-MJDP-17-00015** — postponed (11-0): Postponement of ETHINGTON & ETHINGTON PROPERTY, TRACT 1 - **DP 2014-64** — postponed (11-0): Postponement of SOUTH BROADWAY PLACE (PHASES IIA & III), LYNN GROVE ADDITION (AMD) - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00026** — postponed (11-0): Postponement of RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) - **PLN-MJDP-17-00042** — postponed (11-0): Postponement of RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) - **PLN-MAR-17-00018** — postponed (11-0): Postponement of KMJR, LLC zone map amendment - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00024** — passed (11-0): Approval of FRITZ FARM (SUMMIT LEXINGTON) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-17-00029** — passed (6-4): Approval of BEAUMONT FARM, UNIT 1, BLK B, SEC. 3, LOT 3 (TEXAS ROADHOUSE) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-17-00043** — tabled (10-0): Continuance of ELLERSLIE PLACE, LOTS 2 & 2A (THE MIDLANDS) (AMD) - **PFR 2017-3** — passed (9-2): Approval of OLD FRANKFORT PIKE SCENIC VIEWING AREA --- ## Full transcript Ultimately, and you're not going to hear this a whole lot, but the legal system saved me, and I have been to prison. And I've been every bad place a man can go. And my last run, I was locked up, and I was looking at a lot of time. And I accepted that. At the same time, I knew it was over for the first time. Kind of a moment of clarity. and through the process of the legal system, at this point in my life I had no family there and I had a public defender. And the public defender was a really strong advocate for me for whatever reason. And I had a pre-sentence investigation and I was just openly and honest. I had never been honest before and the clinician at the time actually prayed with me and appreciated my honesty. Probably doesn't hear it a whole lot. And I go into the court, and my PSI was very unusual to this judge and the prosecution, and it outlined my honesty and how this guy needs help. This guy does not need to be in prison. And so I was given the opportunity to go to the healing place, and there's something working there. There's something working. I was expecting to go to prison for five to ten years, and next thing you know I'm given an opportunity at recovery. That's awesome. Yeah, legal system bailed me out. No pun intended. I got on my knees and I threw up the first, like, sincere, authentic prayer of my whole life. It wasn't a foxhole prayer like, God, don't let this cop pull me over, don't let him find my stuff. It was, God, I can't do this anymore. And I need you. and at some point thereafter it wasn't like a white light moment. I didn't hear a booming voice, but it started to get easier just to see that I didn't have to do it. Since I couldn't do it, I didn't have to do it, and I kind of let him take over, and it's been going well since then. I just decided one day that I don't want to live this way no more. It was a struggle in the beginning when I decided to make that positive change. It was a struggle because, you know, it kept pulling me back. It kept pulling me back. So it wasn't easy. It was a process for me. You know, I had to start asking for help. You know, and I had to start actually applying the tools that were taught to me. And so that's what I did. You know, I realized that my life is very valuable, not just to myself, but to somebody else. I wanted to stop. I knew I had to stop. But I couldn't stop. and I knew the only way I was going to stop was an intervention of some sort. And mine came in the form of the law. And when I went to jail, I finally took a deep breath because I knew it was over for me. I knew I could finally get help. I battled addiction since I was 20 years old, and by the time I was 30 years old, I just came to that split in the road where it was either die or get on to living. And looking back, thank God I chose the right path. I'm engaged. I had my first child due in June, Christopher. I've already purchased nearly 2,000 diapers. That's what I've been investing money in, not in the stock market but in diapers. I'm just so excited to have an opportunity to have him in my life after everything I've been through. Truly blessed. You can't force anyone to get help, you can't force anyone into treatment, but you can give your loved one good advice and that's what I'd encourage the loved ones to do. The people that are going through these struggles, they want a way out, but they don't know how. They don't know how to receive the help that is offered to them. compassion, try not to get so frustrated and know that there is a solution to the problem. There is hope and there is light at the end of the tunnel. First you have to stop using. It's hard but it is so rewarding. I smile now. You know, the recovery process for me is is like a second chance of life. And it's about hope. And if that's what I can get out, it's about hope. And it's about knowing that no matter what I've done, I can move on from it. I'm not feeling like I usually do I think it might have something to do with you Every time you're near me My body gets hot Don't need a doctor I know what I'm about I call the church of your love It came on overnight I must have held you too tight Last night Call the church of your love Your affection has affected me. I'm feeling kind of dizzy and weak in the knee. I've been in love before, but never so bad. You're in my system and it's driving me mad. Caught a touch of your love. It came on for a life. I must have held you too tight Last night and caught a touch of your love Fever from your kiss tears me apart It starts from your lips and goes straight to my heart No use pretending cause baby I'm sure There's no cure and I just gotta have more Call the church of your love Thank you. Thank you. Hi, welcome to Heart of Gold. I am Paul Chartier. We have the pleasure of having on Eddie Grand, head football coach of the offense. I'm out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 13 minutes. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve the minutes of April 13, 2017. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Moving forward to postponements and our withdrawals. Good afternoon. I'm Rich Murphy with Abbey Jones Consulting. Can I please direct your attention to the bottom of page two, top of page three? It's PLN MJDP 17-6 Lexington Mall CrossFit. On behalf of the client, we would like to withdraw that project. There's a lot of issues that they just can't get resolved, so they've decided to withdraw. I got you. In that case, I'm not going to even ask for any comments from the audience. Do I have to, Mr. Salley, even though it's a withdrawal? Chairman, usually for the minutes, we note the Commission's acceptance of a withdrawal just so there's a breakdown of what's happened to that item. Okay. Any other discussions from the Commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion officially to get this off the books. Thank you. Well, we haven't done it yet. Mr. Chair, I'll move for withdrawal of Plan MJDP 17-6, Lexington Mall CrossFit Maximus. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we withdraw PLN MJDP 17-6, Lexington Mall. Any discussion on the motion? Will I please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'd like to turn your attention to the addendum. Bottom of that page is under the Minor Subdivision Plan, Minor Subdivision 17-22 Reserve at Walnut Grove. Request a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Mr. Chairman, if the staff could address this. We've prepared for you a report on this plan, a white sheet titled Development Plan Recommendation. In that, we are recommending that a sign be posted on the property. This is a minor plan in the expansion area. There has been no sign posted, so we have no objection to the postponement, but we would ask that the commission require the posting of a development plan notification sign on the property prior to your consideration next month. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And the one month, what's the date on that, by the way? The meeting in June is on the 8th, four weeks from today. June the 8th. Okay. Again, anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? You won't. If not, let's commission. Yeah, I would like a motion. Mr. Chair, at this time I move for postponement of PLN MNDP 1722, the reserve at Walnut Grove, a one-month postponement to June 8th of 2017. It's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we postpone PLN MNDP 17 days 22. including including okay that's a good point including the posting of the science is that agreeable with you are including the postage of the signage at the reserve at Walnut Grove for this particular plan any other discussions on that particular motion not would you please vote when it comes up on your screen thank you thank you motion carries thank you Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the Ethington and Ethington property. It's on page three of your agenda, item B. We request a one-month postponement on this matter. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion for postponement. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLNMJDP1715 to the June 6th meeting. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we postponed. I'm sorry. The mover is Mr. Frank Penn. I'm sorry, I'm looking at my mind. The mover is Mr. Frank Penn. And the seconder is Mr. Patrick Brewer for the postponement of plan PLNMJDP 17-15 Eddington and Eddington Property Track 1. It's a one-month postponement until June the 8th. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry, Carolyn. Mr. Nichols, I'll remember that. Tony Barrett, call your attention to page 7, letter M, BP 2014-64, South Broadway Place, and Lindgrove Edition. We need to postpone in order to advertise. I believe we can do a two-week postponement and get the advertisement in placing. Okay, two-week postponement. My understanding that the advertisement can occur in that time frame. Okay. Anyone in the audience would like to speak for this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Now we're ready for a motion. What's the date? What's the date on that, Mr. Salih, in two weeks? May 25th, Mr. Chairman. May 25th. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Move two weeks postponed for DP 2014-64 South Broadway Place. That would be May 25. Thank you. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we postpone DP 2014-64 South Broadway Place phases 2A and 3 Lynn Grove edition as amended until May the 25th. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Got it. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. I've got two related items I'd like to postpone. The first item is on page 2, item C, PLN, NJSUB 17-00026, RML, Citation, Hill and Meyer Interest. We would like to postpone this for one month, I believe June 8th. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Ms. Mundy? Mr. Chair, I move for postponement. Not on. I move for postponement of PLN MJSUB 17-26 RML citation, a postponement of one month, which would be June the 8th of 2017. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone Plan MJSUB 17-26 RML Citation Hill and Meyer Interest LTD for one month or until June the 8th. Any other discussion on that motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay. The second item is on page 7 of your agenda, item K, PLN MJDP 17-00042. RML citation Hill and Meyer interest. We would like a one-month postponement on this as well. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? All right, it has been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy and seconded by Ms. Plumlee, I suppose. Ms. Karen Mundy, do you want to make that motion so we get it out officially on the records? Mr. Chair, thank you. I move for postponement for one month, which would be to June 8, 2017, of PLN MJDP 17-42, RML citation. It's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone Plan MJDP 17-42, RML citation, Helen Meyer Interest LTD, until June 8, or a one-month postponement. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you. Chairman Wilson, on behalf of the staff, I would like to request a postponement, page 9, for PLN MAR 17-18, and the applicant is KMJRLLC. This is a map amendment request to modify ND1 restrictions for 1231 Eldemere Road. The staff is asking for a postponement in order to provide the proper zone change posting at the subject property. I failed to post the zone change sign on the property two weeks ago, and I've notified the applicant and they are obviously agreeable to a postponement so that the proper notification can be provided at the property. And I would like to apologize to the commission and to the applicant. Is this a confession or a request? One month, two weeks, what's it? Two weeks. Two weeks. To May 25th, please. May 25th. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, anyone on the commission? Roll in, obtain a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Mr. Chair, move postponement until May 25th for PLN MAR 17-18 KMJRLLC. Okay, it's been probably moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. second Ms. Karen Mundy that we postpone PLN MAR 17-18 KMJR LLC for two weeks or until May the 25th and along with that motion comes a forgiveness I have a response to that but I won't give it here on TV any other discussion on the motion hearing that would you please vote when it comes up on your screen Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements? The floor is still open, and we're doing well here. Okay, in that case, we'll move to Mr. Salley for our possible consent agenda items. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. You have almost cleared your decks this afternoon. Almost all of the remaining agenda items do appear in your consent agenda. There are two final subdivision plans that are recommended for conditional approval by the Commission's subdivision committee. The first appears on the first page of your agenda. That is Major Subdivision 17-24, an amended final record plat for Fritz Farm, also known as Summit Lexington. This property has addresses of 4100 Nicholsville Road and 280 Harrison. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 2, item B, Major Subdivision 17-25, Glen Creek, also known as Dove Creek, Unit 3B, Section 5. The property that this plat encumbers is at 1155 Jonestown Lane. In addition, there are seven final development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that appear on your consent agenda. The first is on page 4, item D of your meeting agenda, Major Development Plan 17-33, Providence Place and Interstate Service Center, Unit 6, Lot 2A. This plan is for property in 1935 Stanton Way. The next item on your agenda also is on the consent agenda, page 4, item E, major development plan 17-34 for Newtown Springs. It's a portion of track 2 of that development located at 564 Asbury Lane. Page 5, item F, this plan is also on the consent agenda, major development plan 17-36, Kappa Kappa Gamma Incorporated, a development plan for property at 238 through 248 East Maxwell Street. On page 5, item G, this plan is also on the consent agenda. Major development plan 17-37, Fritz Farm, also known as Summit Lexington, an amended final development plan for property also at 4100 Nicholsville Road. On page 5, item H, we find major development plan 17-38, Glen Creek, also known as Dove Creek. This is for property at 1145 and 1156 Appian Crossing and also 1155 Jonestown Lane. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 6, item I, Major Development Plan 17-39 for the Bluegrass Business Park. It's also known as Pemberton Farm originally. This is lot 2 for Kito, USA. This is for property with an address of 2550 Innovation Drive. One additional development plan on your consent agenda, the next item, page 6, item J, Major Development Plan 17-41 for Hamburg East, Lot 4. It's also known as the Polo Club at Hamburg Place. This is for property at 2575 Polo Club Boulevard. There is a requirement for a sign posting involving this property, and the applicant's engineer has presented to the staff the required affidavit with photo evidence of the signs posting. It's been up for four weeks, so we find that it is in order. Also, the staff has prepared for you a report, EMP compliance report, because the Planning Commission is required to make findings should you approve this plan that it is in compliance with your expansionary master plan. On the top of page two of that report, you'll find the staff's findings to support that. There is one additional item on your consent agenda. It is on page eight, item N of your meeting agenda. It involves DP 2016-23. This is a request for reapproval of a previously approved development plan. It has been recommended for re-approval by your staff. It involves the Sam's property and also the Larkin property, an amended final development plan for property at 1510 Greendale Road and 2440 Innovation Drive. Mr. Chairman, at this time, these 10 items can be considered for approval by the commission, as has been recommended either by your subdivision committee or by the staff. That is unless a member of the planning commission, a member of the audience, one of the applicants, could ask you to remove one of these 10 items to allowed to be further discussed today at your meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience like to pull any of these particular items for additional discussion? Anyone on the commission? Okay. If not, then we'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda. Let me note, however, that when you make this motion, give some special attention to J, because it has findings connected with it, so you can approve the consent agenda noting the fact that Item J of Plan 1741 has those findings, and we will include that as a part of your motion if that's okay. Mr. Brewer? Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for a approval of the consent agenda noting on page 6, Item J, the findings the staff gave for 1704 Hamburg East. Okay, it's been I've been properly moved by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve the consent agenda with special note on PLNMJDP 17-41, Hamburg East, that we also approve the findings as well for the expansion area master plan. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Consent agenda is approved with findings connected with J. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would also note there is a typo on your consent agenda. The very first item indicates findings when necessary. That is not the case. Thank you. Okay, the first item that we will hear, I guess will be on page four. While they're setting up for that, without objection from the committee, we'll take the performance bonds and credit Mr. Craven. Mr. Chairman, move approval of the release and call of bonds. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Craven, second by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we release the call of bonds. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when that comes up on your screen? Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. We are looking at page 4, item C on your agenda. This is MJDP 17-29. It's Beaumont Farms in relation to the Texas Roadhouse. This is an amended final development plan, and they are wanting to add buildable area to the front and the rear of the existing restaurant. There will be no changes to any parking, total number of parking. They will be restriping the handicap up front. To the rear, you've got Hampton Inn and the Fairfield Inn. Directly next to this restaurant is Waffle House. And right across from Lake Crest Circle is Harrodsburg Road. The proposed addition is only about 600 square feet. So there are 19 total conditions. Eight of them are standard sign-offs. the remaining conditions the majority of them are cleanup items regarding the clarity of the plan when the applicant enlarged this plan a lot of the solid lines that were previously existing on the original dp were left off or or faded so we just like to see those lines cleaned up all the information that was from the previous DP to be carried over to this. Additionally, the Planning Commission's certification will need to be fixed. With all that, staff is able to recommend approval. Any questions? Mr. Owens? Thank you. Can you explain number, I guess, particularly 13, clarify ingress and egress locations? You know, it seems kind of significant to me. So with the map colored up right now, you can see them quite clearly. But without the color associated with it, it's quite difficult to read and notate where the egress and ingress is. So is this a revised plan? This is a revised plan that they submitted to us on May 3rd. May 30th? 3rd. Third. Third. Okay. Okay. Why wouldn't we have revisions from this? I don't know that I have an answer for that. I think the applicant may be able to assist for that. Any other questions? Applicant. I think they do have a question for you, even though – give us your name and – us your name. My name is Leland Jones. I'm here representing GPD Group. I work for the architecture firm, but we're working with that engineering firm. Can you repeat the question? I'm not sure who would be best to answer. If you turn this in on May 3rd, our staff probably didn't have a chance to review it prior to the subdivision committee. I'm just wondering why it hadn't been reviewed and, you know, with revisions since that time. Mr. Chairman, the staff did email the applicant about submitting revisions. I believe it was on Monday of this week, but there was some hesitation to do that between now, between then and today's meeting. The deadline, of course, was Tuesday at 1.30, and that could have been part of the reason for the hesitation. The staff did inform the applicant that with the conditions it could be approved, but of course not on your consent agenda. Okay, so am I hearing this right? I thought this clarified and corrected number 13, but the others, no? No, I think what Mr. Bronzik told you was that the ingress and egress points you're seeing on the rendering are visible because we have rendered the plan. Because you have. Okay, so this is in our division. That's right. The line weights were part of the loss of information when the plan was expanded in size. Okay, so I guess I'll go back to that. If they notified you on Monday, no attempt to correct this? We are currently attempting to get these revisions picked up and submitted back to the city. I don't think we were able to get the revisions in by Tuesday because our initial submittal was a five-page packet with all of our civil drawings in it, and I was informed that it needed to be on one page, and that is what you're seeing here. It probably would have helped if someone had been in attendance at the subdivision committee meeting. Yeah. You know. Yeah. This, to me, is just poor quality of work. That's the only thing I can say. Mr. Martin? I think this may exist in explaining the situation a little bit. You see, this is one version the staff did receive on a tent, and you can see it's much cleaner, and you can see the parking lot, you can see the ingress and egress. But it didn't have our note information and our Article 21 information, which this plan does. So it's a matter of them just cleaning this up and making it legible. And occasionally this happens, you know, with an applicant. It just seems like, you know, one, there's no representation in subdivision. Well, that we can't speak to, obviously. Yeah, obviously. And, you know, what we're seeing on our agenda with 19 conditions, most of them being cleanup, came out of technical, I'm sure, which would have been two weeks ago. And, I mean, nothing's – I mean, it just doesn't seem like there's been any attempt to clean this up. I'm sorry to say – and that's the reason we postponed because no one put forth an effort to show up at the subdivision committee. And if it had been, you know, this could have been clarified and maybe, you know, you all realized that this needed to be done. Mr. Owens, just to clarify, I would say that the May 3rd submittal did alter quite a bit the staff's ability for recommendation versus the technical committee. The plan, I think, initially was recommended for disapproval by the staff and morphed into an approval with this number of conditions because of the change. So these 19 conditions, there were more coming out of technical? Well, out of technical, I believe the initial recommendation was for disapproval, was it not? Yes. So with the original submittal, what we received basically was equivalent to construction plans. So we calculated about 30-plus conditions. And when they came back on the May 3rd, they really worked heavily with me to come with what you see here. All right. I just appreciate the interest to, you know. Mr. Penn? No, I'm going to meet you. It's all been cleared up. Let me get clarity for my sake. At this stage of the game, the staff is approving? The staff has met approval? Yes, sir. Okay. With the 19? With the 19? Yes. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? My question is, usually we don't see clarify, and I don't know how to handle that. It's either resolved or it's not. So what do we do? Well, if I could address, again, let's look at number 13. It's not addition of the information. The information is on the plan. There's not really a resolve because those access points exist. It's more a matter of clarifying the information on the line drawing so that it's as clear to someone looking at a black and white drawing as this rendering is. So that's usually what a clarify condition means. It's not that the information is missing, but it needs some additional augmentation to be able to be more visible to the average person looking at the plan. So when we have, as a staff, clarify that's the type of improvement we're hoping to see between your approval today and when the plan may be certified in the future. I hope that helps. That's an example of what we mean when we ask you to approve it with a clarify. condition. Any other questions? Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular plan? Okay. Back to the Commission. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'm going to go along with the staff on this. Move approval of Plan 170029. Okay. With the 19 conditions. Well, there's 19 down there. I guess all of them, yeah. Okay. Do I have a second on that? Motion dies for the lack of... No, no. Oh, someone second. Oh, I'll get rid of that. I didn't see anything up here. Okay, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. It finally came through here. Mr. Craven is moved, and Ms. Carolyn Richardson seconded that we approve PLN MJDP 17-29 Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Block B, Section 3, Lot 3, with the 19 conditions as identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? The motion is approved 6 to 4. Okay, next. Thank you. Next item on your agenda is on page 7, item L. This is MJDP 17-43, Ellerslie Place, Lots 2 and 2A. This is an amended final development plan, and they are wanting to increase the unit sizes on Lot 2 and increase the size of the mixed-use building on Lot 2A by roughly 8,000 square feet. So this property is located right off Midland Avenue. You have another entrance off of Walton Avenue. To the north, you have Lexington Stonecut. And then about a block south is the Lexington Herald Leader Building. this plan has 17 total conditions listed on your agenda with eight being standard sign-offs most of the remaining nine conditions are cleanup items such as dimensions being denoted correcting the planning commission cert and correcting the title block information we would like to see the addition of the stormwater detention note carried over from the recorded subdivision plan. And lastly, the discussion item, which is condition number 17. The pedestrian access was difficult to discuss at the committee meeting due to the applicant having no representation. The discussion item was in regards to the pathway coming between the townhomes and it had to do with there being a connection access between lot 44 the previous plan there was a opening here currently this plan is a completed pedestrian system and staff feels like this this condition can be removed because these 10 townhomes are connected. With that, staff can recommend approval. Let me, well, any questions, let me ask from anyone that has any questions related to this. Is there somebody who's representing that? I have a question if no one else does. Let me go back to this business about number 17, discussed pedestrian, how are you all working with that? So, I guess I'm not sure on what you mean. Well, it says discussed pedestrian access between lots 36 and 37. Has that been resolved in any way? Yes, that's what I was just covering up. So, the previous DP, lots 36 and 37, have changed to lot 44. The previous development plan, there was a break between the townhomes on what is now lot 44. Instead, it is a contiguous 10 townhomes, so there's no place for that connectivity to go. However, the pedestrian pathway, it's a complete system, so we felt that it could be removed completely. Mr. Wilson, if I could add on to that. Okay. And I looked at this very issue that you've asked about earlier this week. On the previous plan, in that area of the development, there were two townhouse buildings that had connected units, and there was a gap in the middle of that run of townhouses. And that's where this sidewalk was between the units. With this amendment, they now want to push those together. The gap is eliminated, and there's no place now to put the sidewalk. So what Mr. Bronzik has reported, though, is all of the lots will be served by a sidewalk, but that one spur, if you will, is no longer possible because there's now a townhouse proposed in that area. So that, in essence, is how that issue's been resolved. So the question now is, do we delete 17? Okay. Okay. Okay. Is the applicant here? Did the applicant attend the subdivision meeting? Does the applicant have any interest in this? Well, I'll leave it up to the commission at this stage of the game. We'll bring it back to the commission for discussion and our motion. I've got some discussion. Okay, Mr. Penn. I'm not saying we can't do work without the applicant. I'm just telling you it's a whole lot easier to subdivision if we have somebody representing the applicant at that time. And we've seen two examples of this just on today's agenda. So I don't know how we're going to operate the subdivision committee in the manner that it needs to be operated on if the concerns have to be addressed through the staff back to the applicant. You know, that's not our normal way of doing things. So I'm not saying we need to hold this one up. I'm not saying we need to pass it. I'm just saying that we've had two of these in one month, and I don't want to send the signal that it's going to come if you want to, but if you don't, we'll do your work for you. And that's the message we're sending here, and I think it's the wrong message. especially in this case Mr. Burrell I'm going to tag on with Frank's comments two in a row and the conversations we've had multiple times before about numerous notes and things that need to be corrected now we have one that nobody even bothers to show up personally I can't support that any other comments? I'd be in agreement well in that case I'll entertain a motion Mr. Chair, I'll move to postponement to Plan MJDP 17-43, Ellis Lear Place, until the applicant wishes to come and join us. Mr. Chair. Yes. Continuance? That's fine with me. Okay. Is that okay with the seconder? Yes. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? has been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we continue PLNMJDP 17-43 and elegantly placed lots 2 and 2A. Mr. Chairman, I have one quick question. It doesn't change any of the vote, but I want to get it done beforehand. Did the staff reach out to them after they didn't show it at the subcommittee? And they didn't respond to anything? Well, I guess the other question is legally, I suppose we still in, I mean, we do have to hear it, even if in fact it doesn't. Is that, clarify the... Yes, Mr. Chairman, we always put, we always try to put the date on your agenda, which is your deadline to consider the plan. In this case, this plan is before you up until early July. I think from the staff perspective, you're perfectly fine to continue, postpone, especially for lack of representation. That makes perfect sense. Well, I think that's fair. I agree with all my colleagues on that. I think that anyone doesn't show up, and when they have questions that we have, it's very difficult to deal with. In addition to that, I also take note of the fact that anything that doesn't get before the subcommittee also needs to go that way. But in any event, the motion is on the floor. It has been properly moved and seconded that we continue this. You didn't put a time frame on it. Is that the next May to June 8th or May the 25th? Which date? Which would be the appropriate date for this particular thing? Well, I think, Mr. Chair, I think one month would be appropriate, which would be June 8th. And if I may, as far as continued discussion on this, I'm sure we'll get the attention of the applicant in conversation up to that time. I think it would be appropriate to ask them to bring in a revised plan cleaning this up, and I would like to see it again in the subdivision committee since they did not show up in the subdivision either. Well, I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll make sure the motion stays as it is with the continuance, but we'll make note of the fact that as a side issue. Yes, sir, Mr. Cravens. You know, I hate to see us taking a punitive approach to this. I mean, it's a plan. The applicants don't have to be there. It would have been better if they were. But this is such a minor condition, just like the one before was such a minor condition. I guess it's bad luck that this one followed that other one. But, I mean, the staff is comfortable with approval on this, and I don't know why we don't approve it. Mr. Penn. No, the other one was 600 square feet. This one backs up the bell court and changes the circulation pattern within the subdivision. And I don't see the two as equal. But the main thing is that I don't know how we're going to carry on our work if we don't at least enforce some people to show up and discuss it with us. Because if you don't, what's going to happen is you're going to be doing more and more of these because if they can get biotechnical, they don't need to show up in front of us. We'll just decide it right here today. And if you're going to run a subdivision committee, you need to have people show up so the staff can discuss the sticking points with them and they have an opportunity to fix it. Well, I'm not on the subdivision committee, but I used to be. And you all have done a good job with all these other plans. They're all on the consent agenda. And I think that's a lot of hard work by everybody. But I guess the tone of this conversation is what I'm objecting to, and I see it as a minor change. Any other comments? Let me go back and review. A motion is on the floor for continuance for Plan MJDP 17-43, Ellerslie's Place, Lots 2 and 2A, for a one-month postponement, which is to June the 8th. That's the motion that's on the floor. That's the motion that's been seconded. A continuance, absolutely. So with that, would you please vote? You're voting now on continuance of this particular PLN JDP plan. Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. While we've cleaned up just about everything, it goes now to the Do we have an abbreviated hearing? We do have a final subdivision plan, I think it was added Plan 32 On your addendum, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. It's on the ground bill. This is the addendum to the instructional Oh, we did. The one on the top. Or the rear yard building. I don't know. Which one is it? That's the one we got here, right? No, we postponed the bottom one. We postponed the bottom one. This one went. I think right now we're hearing plan 212-32F, right? Yes, sir. This will close out your subdivision development. That's what the... Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on your addendum today under final subdivision plans, there is a plan. It's 2012-32. This is Lockmere Estates, also known as Maple Ridge. It's Unit 1A, Section 1. This plan is back before you today for a reapproval. it was approved as the title tells you in 2012 it was an area out on chilesburg road it originally had a private street system here and again this is section one there's another section over here that you saw on the original plan when it was originally done that has been platted the streets were later dedicated and they brought a plat into this body and you all accepted those streets, and they are now public streets. In this particular issue, what you see here, we have colored up the lots. These were all the original lots that were approved. They had been recorded in sections. That's not unusual. These are the sections. These are the plats that recorded first these and then these. What remained were these two lots. This is the Miller House. I'm sure this body's heard a lot about the Miller House, the architecturally significant house. out here on this property. It's been through some changes of ownership and some issues with it. Apparently now there is someone who is interested in buying the Miller House, which is a good thing. I'm sure this body, along with your staff, we support that. It will, however, also create an open space slot right here. Most of the open space in this development is all joined together, basically, and kind of meanders around because that's an expansion area open space requirement. These lots, as you can see, are floaters. So this will, however, because of the right-of-way and because of the creation of the Miller House lot, create these two lots. They were identified on this plat originally. They haven't been recorded. So they need to get it re-approved so they can record those two lots. and staff is recommending re-approval subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Applicant? Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We're agreeable to the conditions. Request approval. I like your presentation. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Okay, back to the Commission. Ms. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got one question, I guess, for staff more than anything. Under their recommendation for reapproval, subject to the first 15 conditions, are we, number 16 is not necessary. It's not necessary. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Owens. That's a good catch. Anyone else? Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I move for re-approval of Plan 2012-32F for Lochmere Estates on Maple Ridge, Unit 1A, Section 1, amended. Second. With the recommendations from staff. Conditions. Still second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mr. Brewer, that we re-approve Plan 2012-32 Lockmere Estates Maple Ridge Unit 1A Section 1 as amended with the 15 conditions as identified by staff. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now let's get back to the agenda. We're back to commission items. I think we've got one more. Yes, come on in. Good afternoon. I'm a little nervous about this because the applicant's not here, which is the Division of Engineering. Andrew Gunwall was supposed to be here. He told me that he was going to try to get here as quick as he could, but he was in another meeting on another floor, and I don't see him at the moment. So this is for a property located at 2450 Old Frankfort Pike. You can see up here on the aerial, you'll see Old Frankfort and then Alexandria Drive right there at the roundabout. This property backs up to the industrial area, and this is for an Old Frankfort Pike scenic viewing area. This is something that was agreed upon between the Lexington-Frankfurt-Senate Corridor Committee and the Urban County Government, along with District 7. They are going to put in an area for people to come and stop and view out to the rural area of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County. The bill has the layout. And what this is including, they'll have an access point that comes in off of Old Frankfurt Pike. They'll have six parking spaces available for people to come and park. And then what you look at right now is like a paved area that will allow people to walk around, and they're going to have signs which give you information that will go back in the history of Lexington County. County, along with all their farmlands and how it was developed. Old Frankfurt Pike is one of six national rural corridors in the state of Kentucky, but out of 150 in the whole United States. So this is a very important area. It gives a lot of information to our history. After reviewing this with the Comprehensive Plan of 2013, it meets several of the goals and objectives, as you can see. And with that, I'll have any other questions or comments. Any questions? I have one. Yes. Let me ask you this. It says here the site will have a small parking area for six cars, So are they going to prohibit buses and things like that from stopping? That's a good question. Let's ask the applicant. I don't think there's going to be enough room really to bring in a bus. I think this is more for people that are driving through our rural roads, enjoying the viewing of the parks and the horses and the farm areas. I don't know that it's big enough for a bus. I'll have to ask Andrew about that. Well, let me ask you this. I'm not quite familiar exactly where it is. Is there a pull-off area of any kind near there? I mean, I can see if there's. . . Not really. Okay. We just approved. . . There was an industrial trucking company that just got approved a couple months ago, which will be across the street from the entrance to this area. But what you'll be viewing is it's going to face towards the rural area towards the west. And the roundabout. Past the roundabout, yes. You're going to overlook the roundabout over to the other side of the park. I don't know that they knew that this was coming in for the trucking company when they proposed this and agreed upon it. I didn't know this was coming either when we were looking at the trucking company. So nobody talked to the other person. I'll let you go. Mr. Penn, you can go ask the traffic if you'd like to. Yeah, we're going to call you. Yeah, you might as well put your stuff down and come off. I get what I'm saying. I just didn't have the nerve. That's called passing the buck. I was on my way out. I saw that. My question to you is that when you exit the roundabout, you're going toward Frankfurt, you exit the roundabout. It's at the top of the hill on the right-hand side where the rock wall is. To get up to that elevation, it almost has to be. Right, due to the horizontal curvature or vertical. Yeah, the site distance will definitely have to be met. We won't let them. So what's the next process after we approve this, what happens? Cheryl? I'm surprised that Andrew hadn't discussed this with traffic engineering. We'll have to get him to review that with traffic and find out. You're not as surprised as we are. I was just giving this. I understand what they're trying to do, But somebody that has driven that road with horse fans a lot of times, the access and the people that come in and out of there that have no idea what that road is like, I would like to have some assurance that this is at least a safe way to do this. I mean, this is a review I understand, but people get killed on Old Frankfort Pike weekly. Right. I understand. And I was a little bit hesitant because I'm not sure that because it is a city project. If it was a typical project, then the applicant would have to go through and pull a building permit or a paving permit. And at that time, we would look closely at the site distance to ensure it meets our requirements. And whether they have to shift it or do clearing adjacent along that entrance. In this case, I don't know that they have to, but we definitely will get with Andrew to review and go out there on site, look at it, and make sure we don't have a site distance concern. I don't want this project to be called Andrew's Folly. Me neither. Mr. Penn, I also think that the urban county government will have to get a permit from the state for any access on the road. That's a state highway, so sure. It is a state highway, yes. I can't imagine us not having to get a permit from this. That's fine. I'm not trying to be hard to get along with you, but I didn't want her to scream. Yeah, I can definitely verify that they will have to get an encroachment permit from the state. They are one of the parties in this application. Mr. Berkley. So I heard you say the state had approved it. Obviously, I guess it's on state right-of-way. Is that right? Yes. Is that a drainage area, though? And is there anything being done to address that? Because I know that when they redid the road, they had to expand it or something. I think I can help. Do you recall, and I know you do, Mr. Berkley, the discussion about the drainage on the little property in the industrial warehouse project that we just had? That area that you see is that drainage area where the basin used to be that the state reconfigured when they built the circle. So it's up there kind of overlooking where that basin used to be. Yes, sir. But they didn't, when they did it, they didn't design this in it. And I'm just wondering, you know, if people are parked down there and we have a 100-year flood, what happens? Well, I believe it's outside the 100-year floodplain. But what we did determine was that area will handle the runoff from that proposed development. I think that's what's been determined. I think this came after all that was done. This is an afterthought. Come on down. Sorry to be late. I was in another meeting. From our site to the roundabout? No. On Old Frankfort, there's a grade difference. I'm afraid that it's going to be too close to the grade. Too close to the grade. Right. So basically the planning commission was asking questions regarding how much, when we proposed that entrance location, did we look at the site distance already, or do we still have to go back and evaluate that? We are looking at that. We actually have an application into the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to look at all those issues to make sure that we're covered. we of course will have to get their approval before we build the entrance here at this location we do not have that at this time but we will shortly I've been out there two or three times I don't I don't necessarily think there was a site business problem I mean I can actually go investigate again if it's And I just couldn't confirm, I have not been out to this site, so I didn't want to speak for you and confirm that we had looked at it. But if you have. When the roundabout was created, there was significant regrading that was done. And you can actually see from our entrance all the way across the roundabout, well on to the other side. Yeah. My question was this. Right here, Andrew. Oh, yes, sir. If you leave the roundabout going toward Frankfurt, you go up an incline, and then is this at the top of that incline? When you leave the roundabout going out of old Frankfurt Pike. The good news is we're actually on the other side of the roundabout. You'll be coming back in towards Lexington. Before you get to the roundabout. So it's on the side coming to Lexington from Frankfurt. That takes care of it. I was under pressure. It was on the other side. Oh, yes, sir. I don't know who's responsible for this. I raised an issue related to the parking. There's only six cars, but the question is, you have buses and many buses and things like that that may want. Do we coordinate with tourism to tell them that they can't stop, or how do we do that to make sure that they don't pull into the six spaces that the car? Yeah. Well, there is significant constraints on the site. this was probably as much parking that we could actually physically put in. We have not coordinated with the tourist board to advertise for things like, I don't think that they could pull in a full bus to this site, no sir. Well, I think they just need to know so they can't get up there. And we can make sure that that coordination happens. We can actually contact the... Okay. Well, Ms. Mundy was suggesting some signage might be appropriate. We can include some signage. No buses or something like that? No bus parking. Okay. And when they do get up there, then we'll fine them. Okay. Whatever. Thank you. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Let me start by saying it seems like any time we have one of our meetings and we're just barely pushing an hour, where we seem to find stuff to talk about. But on this, a couple of questions. This mentions a substantial gate near the entrance. Will the gate be closed at various times? What's the operation of the gate? What's the purpose of it? When we, the City of Lexington, receive it, it will be considered basically a city park. I think a lot of times we do close city parks at dusk. I would imagine that this will operate in a very similar fashion. It will probably be closed at dusk, and that gate itself will be used to secure the site. Yeah. Okay. In talking in regards to tour buses and so forth, you know, several situations. One, a large, large tour bus won't get in there. Several of them have the 15 passengers that probably could. So I'd kind of be cautious as far as no buses because hopefully it would be a good place for tourism. That's the purpose of it. Any plans as far as in the structure information-wise to, you know, you're on a scenic byway, maps or any literature or anything like that going to be available there? I would venture to bet that that will come in the future. There has not been any coordination, at least on our part, the Division of Engineering to make that happen, but there's no doubt in my mind that once Historic Preservation gets involved and some other organizations, it'll... I think Cheryl said, you know, this maybe was talked about for quite a while. It's just a shame that the location it is, the scenic view is going to only be 180 degrees and I don't think they'd want to turn around backwards to look at the viewshed. It's meant to look out towards the countryside. I understand. I understand. Thank you. Mr. Berkley, you've already had your, you don't want to say anything else? Okay. Anyone else? Any other questions? Okay, then we will proceed. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there any additional discussion by the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion one way or the other. I guess I have some. Okay. Ms. Mundy? I guess my question is, I think, and I'm going to be real honest, I just don't think this is a good thing to do just because we have a remnant piece of property. I just feel like that we're trying to force something onto just a little remnant piece of property that is probably going to end up being a, and I don't know, Casey, you would know, I guess, you should know, but it looks to me like we're just asking for a traffic accident, some bad accidents to happen right there in that area. And I know there's a bank and a wall on the other side, and I can't support this. I just feel like we're trying to squeeze something onto a remnant piece of property to sit there and park six cars or get an RV stuck in there to look out over a traffic circle. And it doesn't make sense to me. That's my opinion. Okay, Ms. Plumlee. Since Karen brought all that up, I have a question. Is there a problem with cost for this? Yes, ma'am, there is a budget. This is actually being paid for using TAP money. And TAP money is state money, basically federal money. The match was the property was donated to the city, and we the city then donate the property to build the project. So a federal grant is paying for it. The estimated cost, everything rolled in together, including the cost of the land, is about $700,000. Okay. Any other questions? Okay, then the Chair is available for a motion one way or the other. I've got one question first. If this project is not built, what is done with that money? You know the answer. I can try to answer that question. Can we go to the boat with it? What? Can we go to the boat with it? No. So if the project is not built, the money gets recaptured by the state and reallocated to a different TAP project somewhere else in the state. I understand. So I hate to say it, the money is spent. I guess it's just a question of where is it spent. Well, I think, you know, based on what I'm hearing here and things like that, I understand what Ms. Mundy is coming from. It's not the project necessarily, it's the design of the project that's bothersome. So the question is, do we have enough money to redesign that piece and do something better with it? Well, if you look at the – I wish I had a laser pointer. The problem is that the constraints of the project, it's very, very narrow, the property that we have to work with. Is that a laser pointer? Mm-hmm. The property lines are basically right here, comes to a point, and then comes back. So it's a very narrow lot. The grade of the lot is significant. It's anywhere from, I don't know, probably 6% to 12%. So anything that we were to do would be very long, narrow, with not a lot of room to maneuver, at least in parking. The site itself was not, I hate to say this, was not meant for this purpose. We almost had to work with the designers. CMW did, I think, a fairly good job trying to utilize all of the property in the best way that they could possibly present something that would be usable. I got you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Mr. Owens? Mr. Wilson, Mr. Chair, our purpose here isn't to say yes or no to the plan, but that it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan? Yes. And it is. And we can always make recommendations. I think you can. I don't know whether they can fulfill them or not, but you can make the recommendations. Okay. So what do we do? We can approve, disapprove, postpone, make our approve with recommendations. This is a public selling review. We've just reviewed it. We don't have to. We have to. We have to approve it, and we have to do it. You're correct, Chair. This is a public facilities review, and it requires your approval if you find that the project is in agreement with the comp plan. That's the key. That's the only thing we're really wrestling with. Right. Correct. So notwithstanding all the other concerns we've had with me with Buston and other people with other elements, I understand the limitations upon which we're voting. So with that, we're going to obtain a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Ms. Dawins? I'll move on PFR 2017-3, the Old Frankfurt-Pike-Sink-Bearing area, that this is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, noting the findings, and asking they take a second look at any design features for improvements that they can make possible, noting the discussion here. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we find that PFR 2017-3 Old Frankfort Pike Scenic Viewing Areas in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The findings that are also included, we approve with findings and with one condition that a second look be taken at the design of a particular area considering the discussion that took place here this afternoon. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Thank you. 9 to 2 in favor. Motion carries. Anything else from Mr. Duncan? You got anything else? Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I'd like to bring to your attention some upcoming meetings. First, on Tuesday, next Tuesday, May 16th, there will be a public input meeting for the bike and pedestrian greenway master plan update. That public input meeting will be from 5 until 8 at the West 6th Brewery. So you all are welcome to attend that. Our staff will be there. Are you kidding me? No, sir. No, sir. Those transportation folks know how to throw a party. Hope they don't ride afterwards. So that's next Tuesday. Reminder that next Thursday, which would have been your ordinary work session, we've already canceled that, so you will not have a formal meeting with us next week. The week of May 22nd, your agenda says, it's a little confusing, but the meeting, the Planning Commission work session is actually on Wednesday, May 24th at 1.30, just like it was this week. And again, it's on the third floor of the Phoenix Building. That's Wednesday, the 24th, Planning Commission work session, Phoenix Building, third floor. And then on Thursday, May 25th, your zoning meeting, we've already been displaced from this room, and we know we will be. So that meeting on May 25th will take place in the third floor Phoenix building as well. We'll try to have some audiovisual support for that meeting, which you all know that's a little challenging. And there's a council meeting that will be being broadcast at the same time over here. So your meeting will not be broadcast live. We may try to get it recorded, but it won't be broadcast. So bike pad update or pedestrian public input next week. and then the following week, the 24th and 25th meetings in the Phoenix Building. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other items to come before this body from the Commission, from the audience? Mr. Chairman, just a moment, please. Without objection, then the meeting is adjourned. Have a good day. .