What you do, girl? Blue girl with you No matter what you do I will always be around Won't you tell me what you found, girl? Blue girl, won't you? Knock down the old grey wall Be a part of it all Nothing to say Nothing to see Nothing to do If you would give me all Yes, I would give it to you Nothing would be Nothing would be Nothing would be No matter where you go There will always be a place And you'll see it in my face Oh, God wants you I'm out. Nothing would be, nothing would be, nothing would be No matter what you are I will always be with you Doesn't matter what you do girl I'll go with you you Thank you. I'll be there just wrapped around you. I can't hold back what I feel inside. It's just a fact that you should be mine. Anything you want, you got your body by my love. Love you're bored about me You should be mine Anything you want You got you bored about my love You're bored about me And you won't And you won't And you won't You should be mine All mine Any way that your heart has been denied Ooh, you can come to me Every time that we're together Just confirms the good thing we've got And something this good can be defined One thing's for sure That you should be mine Anything you want You got you born about my love You're born about me You should be mine Anything you want You got you born about my love You're born about me And you won't And you won't And your world should be mine or mine And your world should be mine In the height of your worry Where it's running too deep for you When it all proves too much, too much, too much I'll pull you through I can't pull back what I know inside It's just the fact that you should be mine In a Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ The End Thank you. We are going to approve today, so we will move on with postponements and our withdrawals. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of TaylorMade Real Estate. I'm here to request a postponement for two weeks. On page three of your agenda, Development Plan 3A, the Ethington and Ethington property, We've been communicating with the neighborhood and actually got a letter from them just last night, and we want to sit down with them, see if we can't work out any differences. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? And you're asking for two weeks post- Just two weeks. I believe it's June 22nd. June 22nd. In that case, I'll entertain a motion for postponement for Plan 17-15. Mr. Brewer? Mr. Chairman, I move for postpone of two weeks, appeal in MJDP 17-15, Ethington and Ethington. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLN and MJDP 17-15, Ethington and Ethington property, Track 1, until June the 22nd. Any other discussions on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? And motion carries. Thank you all. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Rich Murphy with Abby Jones Consulting. I'd like to look at page 6, item J. It's PLN, MJDP, 17-52. It's the distillery. We'd like to ask for a two-week postponement to meet the signage, the signed postage requirement. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? This is on page six at the bottom. It's J, Plan 17-52, Distillery District West, Unit 1. They're asking for a two-week postponement to June 22nd. I think it has to do with an announcement of postage. as such. It's a small technical issue. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move postponement for two weeks for Plan 17-52. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we postpone Plan MJDP 17-52 to Stillery District West Unit 1 until June the 22nd. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jihad Hallani. On page 2 for final subdivision plans 17-26, we ask for postponement for two weeks. We are still working with traffic about traffic light and some other items. What page was that on? Page two. Page two? Yeah, item A. Oh, okay, okay, gotcha. Page two at the top of the item A, plan 17-26. Okay, anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, I will entertain a motion for a postponement. How long? I forgot. Two weeks. Two weeks, okay. All right, Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, move postponement until June 22nd for PLN MJSUB 1726 RML citation. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we postpone plan MJSUB 17-26 RML citation Hill and Mary interest LTD until June the 22nd. Any discussion on the motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Also, Mr. Chairman, on page 3, item B, development plan 17-42, also we request postponement for two weeks are the plat and the development plan. We'd like for them to go simultaneously. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Okay, if not, we'll entertain a motion to postpone 17-42 to June the 22nd. I got it. Okay, Mr. Penn. You got it? I'll go ahead. I'll turn it on. It's on page three. All right. Yeah, at the bottom. Yeah. I move for a two-week postponement to June the 22nd for PLM JDP 1742 until June 22nd, 22nd, PD. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we postpone PLN MJDP 17 days 42 RML citation, Helen Meyer, interest LTD, to June the 22nd. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, any other postpone Comments, withdrawals? If not, we'll go now to the consent agenda. Mr. Sally, oh, there you are. We'll change the pace today, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Most of the remaining plans and development plans in your agenda do qualify for consideration at this time for your consent agenda. First is the very first item on your agenda, page 1, item A. This is a preliminary subdivision plan that your staff has recommended approval of, recommended for re-approval, I should say, of an expired plan. The plan 2016-29-K, Hamburg Place Community Phase 2 West Wind, amended preliminary subdivision plan for property at 2350 Winchester Road, and that's a portion of that address. There are two final subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee on the consent agenda. The first is page 2, item B, plan Major Subdivision 17-28, Hamburg East Track 4, Section 3, and amended final record plat for property at 2575 Polo Club Boulevard. Next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, Major Subdivision Plan 17-29, Center point also known as Fayette land company amended this is for property located at 100 West Main Street there are also several final development plans recommended for approval conditional approval by your subdivision committee first is page 4 item C of your meeting agenda plan major development plan 17 dash 43 Ellerslie place lots 2 and 2a also known as the Midlands this is a final development plan amended final development plan for property at 225 walton avenue and 218 and 222 midland avenue on page 5 item e of your meeting agenda we find major development plan 17-45 an amended final development plan for brookhaven's subdivision unit 1f this is for property at 2434 nicholasville road the next item on your agenda is also on the the consent agenda major development plan 17-48 an amended final development plan for Lexmark international lot 5b this involves property at 675 Setzer Way on page 6 item H this plan is also on your consent agenda major development plan 17-50 Eastwood unit 6 section 2 lot 6 this property is at 2472 Fortune Drive. On page 6 item I this plan is on your agenda consent agenda major development plan 17-51 it is lot 3 of the Fuller et al property also known as the Meadowthorpe Community Business Center and also the 1321 West Main mini warehouses this property does have an address of 1321 West Main Street final plan on your consent agenda has been withdrawn and should no longer be considered. However, Ms. Chairman, the remaining items above it can be considered for approval as has either been recommended by your subdivision committee or by your staff for the one item unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, one of the applicants or anyone is present today who would ask that the plan be removed at this time to allow it to be discussed further. Thank you. Does anyone in the audience like to pull any one of these particular plans for our additional discussion. Anyone on the Commission like to pull any one of these plans for additional discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented by staff with the one exception of the last item which has been postponed. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. that we approve the consent agenda as approved by staff with the exception of the last item, which has been withdrawn until June the 22nd. Any other discussion on the motion? Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to support the motion, but I would like to make a note that I would technically abstain from the vote on 1748. Let's mark. Okay, let the record show that 1748. What is the vote? Mr. Patrick Brewer would like to abstain. Also, which one was it? It's page 4, item C. Well, that's what I'm trying to double check. Yes. No. No. It was not. Okay. Okay, we're straight. Okay, with the notification, Mr. Patrick Brewer abstaining from the, that is, PLMJDP 17-48 Lexmark International. Okay, you got that abstention. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, we'll vote. All those? Good. Motion carries. Consent agenda is approved. We can now move on to the next slide. While they're setting up for that, if you all, without any objection from the committee, on page 7, performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Craven, do you want to take the honor on that? Performance bonds and letters of credit. Yeah, I was waiting to do that. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the release and call of bonds. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Craven. Second by Mr. Frank Penn for the release of the call of bonds. Any other discussion on the motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Galt, I think we're ready. Where do we start? I've forgotten. Okay. I'm going to have everybody pull out the green sheet. This is a major development plan for Parkway Plaza, Lot 2. Could you speak up a little bit, please? Could it be better this way? This is for Parkway Plaza, Lot 2, the Jefferson Pool, or Joyland Recreational Center. It's an amended final development plan. This is Parris Pike, Rogers Road. Currently, this is the existing building on the property. They're wanting to use the existing building and add on a garage for vehicle repairs. Like I said, this is a final development plan for this property. You can see that we have revisions. They came back in, cleaned up the plan quite a bit. So the first ten conditions are our typical sign-offs. We just have a few cleanup conditions. We just want to verify. They did submit a geotech report, so that's being reviewed by engineering and Kristen Curry, our environmental person. With that, we believe that the staff can now recommend approval with this plan with the conditions that are listed. Any questions? Any questions? Applicant? I'm Steve Baker with Midwest Engineering. I represent the owner and developer of the project. The conditions are straightforward, and I believe we'll be able to meet them without any issues, so we agree with everything that's proposed. Good. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular plan, either for or against? Anyone on the commission have any ideas, any thoughts? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of Plan PLN-MJDP 17-44 with the revised conditions, the 15 revised conditions as presented by staff. Okay. Ms. Mundy makes the motion to approve PLN-MJDP 17-44 Parkway Plaza, Lot 2, FKA Jefferson and Poole Property, Jorland Recreational Center as amended with the 15 conditions as identified by staff. It's been seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer. Any discussions on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. Motion carries. Approved. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page 5. It is item G. It is Major Development Plan 17-49, the Great House property, also known as the Village at Great Acres. This plan is for property that is located out on Leesdowne Road. There is a proposal to extend Lucille Drive, which is a major collector that runs all the way up to Spur Road. It's being built in sections and pieces over the years. They're proposing this final piece here in this location, along with Summerfield Extension, which will connect over into Masterson Station in this location. As you all no doubt remember, this was recently rezoned. the B3, which we've outlined the area here in B3, and the rest of the property in R3. The plan has been brought to you today for your consideration. It's a final development plan for this corner lot in this location. They're proposing a 15,000-square-foot marketplace along with fuel pumps. access is being proposed off of Lucille Drive in this location as well as access to an access easement, a private drive at the rear of the property which will also bring people out to Lucille Drive. You can see as well a traffic circle is being proposed on Lucille Drive. The rest of the plan at this stage of development is a preliminary subdivision plan. The intent being to construct the infrastructure, the road infrastructure, on this property. Here you can see the FEMA floodplain that does exist on the property. There's a large pond up here and there's a very extensive floodplain. Of course, there's a setback. And if you recall the preliminary development plan, they have a lot of residential development, a lot of units in this area, one of which is impacted by the floodplain currently. That is something we'll discuss again in a moment. There is a, of course, will be revisions to that floodplain. There is a large drainage easement on the property in this location as well. It is a large 50-acre development. Here is the great house where the family remains to this and still living, the big log house cabin structure in this location on the property. They've created a lot. And what we've outlined here for you is another item we'll discuss shortly is an access easement that currently serves that property. The plan that you see before you, it's large. It covers a lot of property. but I would say that in essence it's relatively simple and straightforward. The important thing is we have a final development plan for the marketplace on the original lot and then the preliminary subdivision plan. The issues are primarily one of timing on the infrastructure as well as there is a waiver request for the access into the lot where the marketplace is developed. Now, you can see from your agenda that we have some standard sign-offs of the various entities of the government that will be signing off when they review on this plan. There is one slight cleanup item, which is the clarity of the left and right turn lane information, which is associated with the right turn drive. And we do have several discussion items on your agenda. that you can see, and those of you who are on the subdivision committee may recall, we had a good discussion at the committee about these issues, and they were covered fairly well. The proposed access spacing to lot two and a possible waiver, that is a waiver that I'm going to go over with you shortly. It is this write-in only access spacing from the intersection. that is the subject of a waiver request. The discussion on the timing of the CLOMER is the second discussion item. And again, they have prepared a CLOMER. It was submitted to your local government, to the engineering here. They review it. We sign off on it. It gets sent to FEMA for their review and approval. And that is something that we would just want denoted on the plan. And over time, when they engineer the site, they design it in conformance with that clomer, it will, of course, eventually become a loamer, and the site in the floodplain will be permanently modified. That is important to Summerfield because you can build in a floodplain. But Summerfield, obviously, in the construction design of Summerfield, is something that clomer has to take into account. So, again, that's just a matter of a timing issue that we would like to see denoted on the plan, but we felt, again, it's extensive floodplain. You don't always see them associated with a road. We felt it was important to go ahead and explain that to the Planning Commission so that you could hear a bit of that discussion and understand where we were headed on this particular plan. Now, the timing of Summerfield Drive construction is actually more important. Again, it's going to impact the calmer. But from staff's perspective, what's important about Summerfield is we'd like to see it done with this first phase of development, along with this development, along with the development of the infrastructure shown on the preliminary plan. We believe it's important to go ahead with Summerfield Drive. You're going to see more development plans on the rest of this property, obviously, as they're prepared to develop it. And our concern, again, is Summerfield Drive and the timing of that road being constructed. That leads us to another discussion, and that is, I'm going to jump, that's number 17. Let's discuss the timing of Lucille Drive construction. And again, you can see both of these are shown on the plan as part of the preliminary plan as well as the final development plan. We, the staff, would like to see Lucille Drive constructed in conjunction with this development. We don't want to see the marketplace developed, this entrance built, stopped. We believe this is a very important link, incredibly important link. This is the final link from Leastown for Lucille, which is a major collector. So again, the timing of this construction is the issue for staff that we want to be sure is addressed correctly. and in a timely manner. Now, there's a smaller item, which is item 16, which is discuss lot 1, and this is the great house. They've platted this, and they've created this access easement for the great house family to continue to use as access. This is relatively a small matter, but it needs to be designated on the plan again that once this is constructed, this access easement, which conflicts with parts of their development plan, will be revised and still serve Lot 1, but it will serve it off of Lucille Drive and in a different location. Again, it seems like a lot, but this is actually fairly straightforward issues of timing, is what you really are looking at on this plan. The waiver request that we have passed out to you is not an unusual waiver request for a lot of plans, which is an access spacing request. Specifically, let me put this up, but I'm going to walk back over here. You all have heard many times from staff that there's a default spacing for access, which is 400 feet. In this particular case, from center line to center line, it's about 150 to 160 feet access. And what staff believes is very important, this is a right-in only. This isn't a right-in, right-out. This is just a right-in. So when people are driving and there is a desal lane that has been built with the Leastown Road improvements, there is a desal lane they will be able to turn on to Lucille, and people will be able just to come right in to this development. When they exit, they won't be out in here creating a conflict with folks that are turning on to Lucille. They'll be exiting here on this private access. So staff has reviewed that waiver, and that waiver we are recommending approval of the waiver for this write-in. And again, there are median controls, as you can see, right here on Lucille. And you know that's vital to write in, write out, access points being able to function. There is a median control. They have set this up for a future turn into this development, which is something we'll see again. Now, they had requested a waiver on the circle, the traffic circle. It's staff's understanding that the differences with traffic engineering and there were concerns with traffic engineering have been addressed, and you're going to hear about that. The concern was this was too small, and then the angles of the intersection didn't meet the regulations. You may recall to the north of this property, we had a large development that you've approved called Hash Hounchel. It's up much further to the north. It has a very large traffic circle that was approved. And concern of staff was we felt like something very similar to that should be here as well. A particular, again, as we stated, Lucille Drive is an incredibly important collector and is just a real key to that whole part of town and how that will function. So we don't believe the waiver to those intersections are relevant at this time or needed. We think it is important, again, that they design this and address the concerns of traffic engineering. A related matter I believe you're going to hear a little bit of talk about is a concern about Summerfield Drive. They're showing this as a local. it has been requested from traffic engineering that this be a collector as well, and this will connect the collector that's Lucille and then the Masterson Station collector as well. That's the concern, and I will let both traffic engineering and the applicant elaborate on that particular issue, but you are going to hear that discussion today. And with that, again, I will reiterate that staff is recommending approval of the spacing, access spacing, on the waiver request. And again, I would point out that the discussion items that I've gone over with you are, from the staff's perspective, timing issues that we want addressed on this plan, again, relative to the road construction and the access to the Great House family lot. Those are items we believe can actually easily be resolved. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Any questions? Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Tom, on Summerfield, you're suggesting they can construct it without the official clomer being done? Ma'am, the clomer is submitted to FEMA, and it will not be done until they actually build Summerfield, design it, and do the engineering. Then they submit those finished plans to FEMA. FEMA okays them. Then the CLOMER becomes a LOMER. So the CLOMER is, in effect, done. It's in the process of being submitted. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Yeah, I will. The question that I was conferring with my vice chair up here was you've got 17 items up here. You've got discuss, discuss. This is a final development plan, right? It is a final development for the corner lot only. It is a preliminary subdivision plan for the rest of the property to address the public infrastructure, which is the street system. So then 13 through 17, should we use the word resolve there? I believe resolve would be appropriate, yes, sir. Okay. Any other discussions? Mr. Martin. Okay, thank you. Applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy, representing Anderson Communities. And as you know, in the front row, Dennis Anderson is here, along with Steve Garland of Integrated Engineering, our designer, Mike Kraft, the development manager for Anderson Communities, and Chance Daly from Integrated is here, too. He's worked on this project as well. So we're real pleased to bring this plan for you. You've all heard the zone change for Great Acres sometime during the last year, and this is our first plan that will allow us to get to work on the property. What it does, it will allow us to work on this lot right here and the roadways that you see on the property. We'll have to come back to you some more for everything else we do, but this will let us get started on doing these. So we actually have resolved many of these issues, and I want to thank Ms. Kalker because we were working with her up to yesterday on the size of the roundabout and Summerfield Drive, and we got real close but hadn't gotten there before the meeting, but we managed to meet out in the hallway, and even though she's losing her voice, I think we managed to work out these items in the hallway. So I'll tell you what we're doing here. But first, going through your conditions, the ones we need to talk about are 13 through 17. And the first one is access spacing to lot 2 and the possible waiver. This is the access in here, as Mr. Martin asked for. That's where we're asking for the waiver of the access spacing requirements. And as he reported to you, we have submitted a waiver request. Staff has recommended approval of that. And this is a right-in only. It will allow our traffic to get in here without obstructing the rest of the traffic that's coming through. There's no right-out. It's just a right-in. Plus, we have a median here, so it will prevent anybody from turning left out of here. So it will just get some traffic out here. And this is very almost identical to the spacing situation we have at Townley Center, which works well out there. It's been proven to work real well. So that's our waiver request that we're asking you to vote on. And 14 is the timing of the Clomer. 15 is the timing of Summerfield Drive construction. Those really go together, the Clomer and Summerfield Drive. Steve and I were talking about this, whispering about it while Tom was speaking, and we have our Clomer submitted to the city. The city has signed off on that. It goes through then the state and the federal sign-off requirements. We cannot build Summerfield until that is approved by the state and the federal government. Once it is approved, we can go ahead and build Summerfield, and then when we submit our as-built plans for Summerfield back through the process, then the CLOMER, which is a conditional letter of map revision, becomes a LOMER, which is a letter of map revision, the permanent thing. So that's the process. We have to – our CLOMER has been signed off by the city. We've got to send it through the state and the feds. Once it is, we'll build this, and then our CLOMER will turn into a LOMER. But we cannot start Summerfield until we get that final sign-off from the state and fed on our CLOMER, but that is in process and on the way. The 16 is discussed lot 1 access, relatively replacing existing access easement. Lot 1 is the lot where the great houses have their house. It's the big log cabin type house that you see from Leastown Road. They're going to be staying there. And to accommodate things, they have a private easement over the rest of the property to get out to Leastown. Now, as we build Lucille, we're committed, we're not cutting them off from access at any point, but it's going to change where their access point is. Once we build Lucille, it's going to have to come off of Lucille there. So we've provided for that in the construction so that lot one is never going to be denied access on there. 17 is the timing of Lucille Drive relative to lot two development. and I think what the staff wants to hear and what we're saying is that all of Lucille Drive on our property is going to get constructed at one time. We're not going to be, for instance, just building a little segment. The whole thing is going to be built at the same time. So that was the answer to number 17. The two issues we were talking with Ms. Cowker about are the first is the roundabout, then the other is the width of Summerfield Drive. On the roundabout, we got talking about diameter and whether we got down to, is it 120 feet or 130 feet? And there's some technical issues there. So what we agreed in the hallway is that we would continue to work with Ms. Cowker to get her sign off. If for some reason we can't agree, that might have to default to a four-way stop. but we think we're very close, and so we're going to leave it with her that we will continue to work with her for her approval, and we all agree if we can't get anything worked out on a roundabout, it'll default to a four-way stop sign. On the width of Summerfield Drive, we had shown this as a local street as opposed to a collector street. We showed that on our preliminary development plan, which you all saw with the zone change, and we're showing it as a local here. And our concern was that on this stretch of Summerfield from our property line, and Master of Sensation Drive is just a couple houses off our property line here going this way. There's a signal there at Leastown. And Lucille is here coming down. There will be a signal down there that we don't have any driveways or street intersections on Summerfield Drive for the entire width over to Lucille Drive. What that means is people can drive faster since they're not having any driveways coming out and no roadways coming out. We want to keep the speed on that low. Ms. Cowker's concern was getting the traffic between Lucille Drive and Masters and Station Drive, so we're sort of locked in a we want local, they want collector. We were talking about this, and we've come up with a hybrid approach, and that is that we would have a width of 34 feet, which is between a – it's bigger than a local, smaller than a collector. So it gives you extra space along a local, and we would prohibit parking on the north side. So we would maintain the capacity here. We'd maintain our open vistas into our green space. This is the green space right here, and I want to point out that Dennis is doing a single loaded street here, which is what the comprehensive plan calls for, what the staff advocates. We have our residential over here on the south side. On the north side, we have no residential units, even though we could have arranged it to do some, and that is so we have a clear vista into the green space here. This is a lake or a pond, which is really pretty. We're going to keep it there as one of the focal points of our development. So our solution we worked out with Ms. Cowker was that we would do this as a 34-foot pavement. And that's not the right-of-way. That's the pavement is 34 feet without parking on the north side on that. So that's the conclusion there. And as I said, we want to thank her for working with us. We're going to keep working with her on refining all these items on the streets. And we do need the waiver on the access entrance. The staff has determined we do not need a waiver for the roundabout. I had asked for one. I didn't think we needed one, but I wasn't sure, so I asked one on the roundabout to be safe. staff has said we do not need one on the roundabout so i do not need to ask you to approve my waiver on the roundabout just on this access point right here so thank you very much and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about it any questions for mr murphy mr milp mr pen mr murphy that the current access to the great house property is the old farm road right yes it And it comes out onto Leastown Road? Yes, it does. So when you all put Lucille drive-thru there, you'll take the whole farm road out all the way to Leastown Road? Yeah, he'll have to come out to Lucille to come on down to Leastown Road. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you. Does anyone in the audience would like to speak to this plan? Anyone on the Commission? Okay, we've got a couple of things depending upon the motion. We'll have two motions. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move approval for PLN MDJDP 17-49, the Great House property, the Village at Great Acres, AMD amended. I move that we approve this with all of the recommendations presented by staff, with the exception of 13 through 17, changing discuss from discuss to resolve. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLN MJDP 17-49 to Great House Property of the Village at Great Acres with the 12 conditions outlined by staff with the other four, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 conditions included, but with the change of the word from discussed to resolved. Any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I want to compliment the applicant and the staff. We had a long discussion about this in the subdivision committee. There was some real strong feelings on both sides, and Mr. Murphy, you and your client, Mr. Anderson, have done a good job of getting this worked out, and we certainly appreciate that. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Now we'll go to the waiver. Mr. Chairman, I move approval for the findings for petition for waiver of land subdivision regulations, PLNMJDP-17-49, the Great House property. Second. Okay, again, it's been approved, moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve the waiver, which is the waiver which governs the land use access standards. The waiver requests us to reduce the minimum spacing requirements for access from Leastown Road, Lucille's Drive intersection to the proposed new outlet development. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. The waiver has been approved. Thank you. All right. Mr. Chairman, the next item is on page 7, item K of your meeting agenda. This is Major Development Plan 17-7, Calvary Baptist Church. This development plan is for property at 101-52 East High Street, 212 and 216 South Limestone, and 238 and 252 Rhodes Avenue. What is on your agenda is a request to reapprove this development plan. This plan is a zoning development plan and was reviewed by the Planning Commission in late April, and it proposes no real changes to the Calvary Baptist Church property. It is at the corner of Martin Luther King Butte, Junior Boulevard, East High Street, and South Limestone Street. It's also boarded by Chrysalis Court. It turns in this direction. The only physical change that this plan proposes is a new private street connection from Chrysalis Court through to Rhodes Avenue. That would then allow a circuitous but complete vehicle movement from Martin Luther King through to South Limestone Street through the entire church property. This was subject of rezoning. The church's property was split zoned, if you remember, from late April. That zone change, if it hasn't been accomplished, is very near being accomplished. This plan was approved, like all zoning development plans, with a two-week window for certification. That period expired. And so most of your reapprovals are plans that have been approved for a year that then come back. This is the rare case. The only one I think the staff could find other than one other instance for a plan expired in two weeks. So in order to keep the zone change active, the applicants asked for pre-approval of this plan so then it could be certified within two weeks, which is the commission's requirement, and then the zone change forwarded on to council. This technically did qualify for your abbreviated hearing schedule earlier, but just with its unusual nature, I wanted to take just a minute or two to explain that to you and to see if the commission had any questions. about this plan. The 11 conditions on your agenda remain unchanged from the staff's perspective. The first eight are re-appro... pardon me, agency sign-offs, and most of those probably have been accomplished. The last three are what I would categorize as cleanup conditions just for additional information to be added to this plan. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about why this is on your agenda and what's being requested to it. Any questions for Mr. Salley. Mr. Penn. Bill, I'm collecting whatever the name of that street is to Rhodes Avenue. Chrysalis Court, yes. Chrysalis Court. That's an internal street? That would be a private connection, yes. Rhodes at that point is public and Chrysalis Court at that point is public. Do we have to have a development plan in order to do that street? I don't know that you need a preliminary or final development plan. You may need a preliminary subdivision plan for that. It may just be constructed as part of their internal parking lot. And should they come back with, well, this is a final development plan. Yeah, that's why I was asking that. We'll check and see if they want to do it as either a public, pardon me, a private street or as an access easement. Okay. Thank you. You could consider at this time making it a preliminary subdivision plan also, but again, that's not been requested, so it would just be a little awkward. Well, I just was trying to get a detail cleared up before we went any farther. Right. Any other questions from Mr. Salee? Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Abby Jones. The church does intend to keep it as a private road. They don't intend to build it and dedicate it. So it would just be part of the parking lot, basically. But it is an access easement. Correct. So are you going to stripe it? I mean, how are you going to delineate that? How are we going to know that that's a street connection? It will be striped that way, and there is going to be a subdivision plat that will follow this process where we're doing the consolidation. So you're going to file another subdivision plan that shows that street? Correct. Thank you. Any questions? I think this particular plan could be considered as an abbreviated activity. I think everybody's in agreement. We've got all the technical elements lined up and what have you. But still, is there anyone here who would like to speak to this particular plan, re-approval, so to speak? Anyone on the commission have any other thoughts? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Major Development Plan 17-7, Calvary Baptist Church. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLNMJDP 17-7, Calvary Baptist Church. It's been seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, and, of course, with 11 conditions, it's been identified by staff. Any other questions and discussion on the motion? I'm going to recuse myself from this vote. Okay. Mr. Penn would like to note that he recuses himself from this particular vote. With that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. You're going to church there? Yeah. Oh, well. We have next a minor subdivision plan that we need to hear. Page seven. Thank you. Thank you. We're ready when you are. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item that you see on page 7, Minor Subdivision Plan, this is Plan 17-22, the reserve at Walnut Grove. and we are referring this to you, to this body, for what staff believes is an important situation, and that is we're in the expansion area. And in the expansion area, and the plan, by the way, this is a new plan, is out on Walnut Hill, Childsburg. Greenbrier is in this location. This area is known as the Reserve. They have a street system that you can see here with two cul-de-sacs serving the property. And you have these independent lots that are kind of floaters that were approved. And this relates to the extensive open space that's required in this part of your expansion area plan. And the pathways that you see that are on the plan, and again, you can see the original plan, and this was the original location of the proposed location of the pedestrian system. Now, a lot of folks are going to say, well, they're trails. but in your expansion area they're public passageways they're pedestrian systems and they are alternative pedestrian systems to your standard sidewalk on your right of way and they're defined in your expansion area so it was for that reason that the sidewalk system in 2007 that you can see this walkway it was specifically called out in your expansion area reports as an element of this development. Now, these public passageways are important. Not only are they public infrastructure, but they also are an aspect of the design component, the community design component that the expansion area stresses for the creation of a neighborhood. And so when they submitted this minor plan, And because it had previously been approved as part of your expansion area reports on both community character design as well as infrastructure, staff believed it needed to come back to this body. That was our chief concern, that it come back to this body. So the applicant did then go back, and when they postponed it, they posted a sign. They posted a sign, as they're required to do, for a plan amendment. And, by the way, I have a couple of emails here we're going to pass out to you. We did get a whole lot of phone calls. That sign got a lot of interest. We did receive two emails in support of this change. And the change, in essence, you can see, we have the loop system and we have connections. Well, they've altered the loop system a little bit, but it is still intact. and they've changed the location of the internal aspect of the system. Originally, it was all going to be paved. All this was going to be paved. Now they're proposing, although they're going to pave the loop system, they want to use a different, they want to delineate the internal system with a different surface, either mow it, have it be turf or mulch. and staff was just concerned again that since this is part of your expansion area criteria, that it come back to this body for your approval of this particular change in the system. The staff was also concerned initially about accessibility and disabilities and compliance with the American Disabilities Act. We would state again that they do intend to pave the loop system. that is shown and planned for this community. And you can see we handed out a recommendation. We haven't changed our recommendation in any significant way since the postponement. We did prepare an alternative that basically states that we would recommend that they pave the entire system as originally approved, or devise an alternative fashion that would comply with the American Disabilities Act. And that was our primarily, actually our concern at that time, whether or not accessibility was an issue for this system. And again, just a very committed belief in the expansion area and those compliance statements that this body is empowered to review and approve, that this was a component of that. And so with that, staff has just brought it back to you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a personal question from personal use, Tom. What's the alternative to paving? The alternative to paving? Paving. Well, they're offering mulch or to mow it and kind of define it as a turf. They could use pavers. I mean, there are various alternatives that can be used, and we assume they can work that out with our pedestrian people. I was just curious because personally I have to look for non-paved paths to run on. We understand. What the alternative was. And again, as I pointed out, it's part of a pedestrian system that is part of the neighborhood. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, just a minute. Tom? Oh, I'm sorry, pardon me. On the development plan, it showed paving all the way through, including the connectors and the whole deal, right? In 2007, yes, sir. It did. All right. Because it is in the EAMP and because it is a design feature, we would have to have some type, and I'm going to ask you a rhetorical question. I'm going to ask Roy the same thing. We almost have to have some type of defined what they're going to do with it other than just alternative to paving. I mean, I'm going to give you something to think about because I'm going to ask Rory the same thing. Rory the same thing. I don't know how you can come back for a re-approval and materially change it that much and not know what it's going to be changed to. And actually, Mr. Penn, I know that's rhetorical, but that is why staff is referring it to you because it is an aspect of your AAMP. Okay. Any other comments or questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Mr. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners on behalf of Jimmy Nash, developer of Reserve at Walnut Grove. Rhetorical question. Well, we met on site with the green space planner. We've been working on this for at least eight months. We went in, met with planning staff. They said we should talk to pedestrian coordinators and green space planners. We've had a couple of meetings with Cindy, green space planner. Met on site, discussed what we should do. The 2017 plan area, where it's colored green, goes through a lot of low areas. There's some remaining tree areas and stuff. and the construction aspect of putting paved trail through there didn't necessarily seem like the best idea. Back to the 2007 plan, that was with the zone change. No one was living out there yet. We hadn't built any houses. They're more than half built, I'd say, by now, and the neighbors have asked for these changes as they're moving forward. So with the green trail area on site, we discussed it wanting to be just a mowed trail, turf, manicured, something that would be recognizable. As we talked about, the other options you can do, which is a paver system is harder, a chip stone, a mulch stone, all these different aspects, and there's good and bad of each of them. Mulch would run away, gravel stone, you'd have to have a hard edge to hold it together. If you would like, our preference was a mowed trail. We added the non-porous surface in there as a caveat in the case that some of the areas had to change. If we came to one area that seemed to be wetter, you might have to change from grass to something a little more stable. The trail itself and the neighborhood, there's 80% open space. So we've got a lot of ground to cover out there. The new proposal does have more length of trail. You can see with the orange, out front on Walnut Grove, there's a very large setback in the tree area that's being kept. So we've put the trail more in through that area that's going to be paved so that the exterior loop is larger. Part of the agreement in meeting with Cindy was that where the green trail, Moe Trail, does meet the streets more in between the houses, at that spot where you hit the street there would be something paved and it would be signs that this is the neighborhood path something to define it more so keeping it green would benefit the feel of the residential neighbors you know it is an interesting development those lots are floating there's lots of grass your yard feels bigger than it is so keeping more green in there seems to be what the neighbors are all requesting also adds We've only done these floating lots twice now and I think part of your EAMP talks about distinct characteristics and we certainly hit it with this and with the trail system that is being shown here. The four conditions, as Tom's revised, although I don't have anything in writing, I don't believe ADA requires every access point to be paved, certainly not through a natural area as this would be. I just want to make sure that's clearly in the record as we go forward and I have to get sign-offs to get this plan certified. if you would prefer it to be written that it has to be turf only as opposed to leaving other non-porous options, we can do that if that's more comfortable for you in meeting the EAMP. But I think the option to come in with other surfaces would help the maintenance of it. Any questions? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. So the HOA is going to be maintaining this? Yes. This is within public open space, but it's essentially a private path for these 53 residents in lieu of their sidewalk. Anyone else? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to speak either for or against this plan? Any other comments from our commissioners? And we are ready for a motion. Let me call your attention to one thing, the findings. Just a minute. I'll put this on the overhead for you, please. We can zoom out on that just a little bit where we can read all of that. Language on the bottom is the language Mr. Martin. You zoom out, bottom there. Thank you. That is the language Mr. Martin brought to you earlier in his presentation. The language that is really bothersome to the staff is the idea that these paths, which are a substitute to the sidewalk system in the development, could be made of only turf. I don't think the staff would be opposed to an alternative material to asphalt or concrete. I'm not sure the staff would oppose plastic pavers where grass could grow up through them and there being a mowing because in our mind that would have a hard enough surface where an impaired individual could probably still traverse that in a wheelchair or on crutches or in some other means. But the idea of having a turf trail substitute, in essence, for a sidewalk system is bothersome to the staff. There's been no waiver granted by the Commission for that system. This system was set up in 2007 in lieu of a sidewalk. There's no sidewalk shown on the cross section of any of these streets. So these trails, as it's been mentioned, is the sidewalk system for the development. And so when this came in and we discussed this with the bike and pedestrian planner, there was some initial concern about that. I think this term turf on there is what's really driving the applicant's proposal and giving the staff the most heartburn. I think in changing number one, we would not agree to leave turf on there unless it were clear that some type of plastic paver or other material was going to accompany that turf. Just a mowed grass path is disturbing to us in lieu of a sidewalk system. Thank you. Hold it just a minute for clarification. On number one, it says denote the entire pedestrian system to be paved, and you're saying either asphalt or concrete, right? Well, pavement usually is thought of as asphalt or concrete, hardscape. And number one really is a relaxation or an alternative fashion that complies with the federal requirements. Okay. We're not sure that just a lawn or mowed grass area would do that. These other things that I've described, perhaps a paver system might of some sort. So I'm not super familiar with that act, but I know generally what it requires. And I think I've described to you what our main concern is. Okay. And the findings for number three, the findings cover that part. Right. Provided the Planning Commission makes the finding, the plan complies with the EAMP, and that's what we have here. Right. You have both the original findings from 2007 and then the memo from last month that Mr. Martin directed. Okay. Thank you. Mike. Bill. I thought Roy said there was some hardship trying to make the construction of this through the trees and things. Did you all talk about that? Well, we've not dialogued with him about this since it was referred to the commission in four or five weeks now. I understand that it may be difficult to get them around the trees, and certainly the alternative means makes a whole lot of sense in that situation if they're worried about tree roots and things of that nature. The treed areas on the current plan are pretty minimal compared to the entirety of the development, especially if you compare it to the 2007 layout where there were very few treed areas proposed for these trails. Any other comments? I'm not sure who to ask this of, but I've been out there some, showing houses and things. Aren't there some steep grades in there in some of those areas that go down and back up over more to the right-hand side? I guess I'm jumping up to answer. We don't like to use the word steep grades and steep slopes. That connotates a whole other language of engineering. Isn't it hilly? It is hilly. From what I know of the few trail systems that the city has done that we've had some design aspect with, when they are trying to meet all the ADA requirements, it's like building a road. There are a radius. There's grades. It's no longer a walking path through your neighborhood. I think that the 2017 plan in orange does give a paved loop. It crosses the streets two places, so you can do a short loop or you can do a long loop. There are access points for handicaps. The others are just improvements to the system that gives an alternative walking surface. It's good for the neighbors and it's easier to go through some of the low areas, the wet areas, and the tree areas without having to pave. So we're very much wanting to delineate the difference between where we're going to have the paved loop and where we're going to have the green pathways. Okay. Any other comments? Just for clarity, the staff recommends postponement, but go ahead. I think the reason maybe postponement is too late at this point, a continuance, would just be that this is not resolved. If the Commission prefers that this would be resolved, then yes, a continuance would seem to be in order. If you wish to go ahead with this plan today, we would ask that you add this to number one on the staff list just so with this discussion now we can eliminate the idea of just a solely turf trail as a substitution for a sidewalk system where there's been no waivers granted. Thank you. I just want to get clarity on that. What's the sentiment of our commission? you have one or two choices continuance are if you should approve they've got some recommendations regarding what the number one should be mr chairman from my point of view i think they need to work it out i think the applicant and the staff need to get together to work out what works remember that the homeowners association going to have to maintain this thing and they did it in lieu of sidewalks and if you just mow it well you're going to have soft places david i don't think you want to run down there and be mud up to your knees but you'd like to have some you'd like to have some kind of base underneath it so it may be grassed over top of a base but anyways i don't think we need to negotiate this on the fly i think they need to work it out and come back to the recommendation miss plumley For a motion, if you are. Okay. Well, any other discussion? Okay. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move for continuance of PLN MNDP 1722, the reserve at Walnut Grove. Thank you. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mr. David Drake, that we have a continuance on PLN MNDP 1722, reserve at Walnut Grove. Any other discussion on the motion? Yes, sir. Probably should just consider to which of your meetings, upcoming meetings. Oh. Thank you. At which meeting? Amend that to two weeks. She will amend. June 22. She will amend a motion to continuance to June the 27th. Any other discussion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay. Motion carries for continuance to June 22nd. Seems like we're going to have a loaded agenda for June 22nd. I'm sorry, I've got to ask a question, I guess. Yes. As it's a continuance and it's an expansion area where I have to have a sign up for two weeks, legally, do I need to update the sign today for a two-week postponement? Do I need to update it at all? I think you have to update it to be compliant with the ordinance. Whether you do it today or tomorrow. It would be better if you did it today, but you can't do it until tomorrow. I'm still okay. I don't think anybody's going to have a bit about that. But you need to get it up for sure. Okay. Okay, are we all clear? Thank you. Okay, thank you. We've got a couple of zoning issues to resolve if we discuss page 8, Elkhorn Springs development. so Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. Our next item is a zone change today. It's PLN MAR 2017-8. request by Elkhorn Springs Development LLC. The property has an address of 1975 Russell Cave Road. An applicant is requesting to rezone property from a single-family residential zone, in this case an R1D zone, to our planned neighborhood residential zone which is the R3 zone. The subject property is This is located, as I mentioned, on Russell Cave Road. It's actually at the, well, let's start with this, on the west side of Russell Cave Road at the interstate. So I-64 and 75 corridor bound the subject property to the north, but Russell Cave Road here is an overpass of the interstate, so the subject property won't have any access and there's no interchange at this location for the interstate and Russell Cave Road. In addition, the subject property has a stub street from the west of Ward Drive from the Winburn subdivision into the subject property, and the plan before you today does include an extension of Ward Drive to Russell Cape Road. Other development and zones in the vicinity include, within the Winburn subdivision, there's a variety of residential zones from R4 adjacent to the subject property, as well as R1D to the south. There is also some R3 further in and R1D again further to the west of the subject property and R1E further on Russell Cave Road to the south. Across Russell Cave Road is the Marlboro neighborhood and then across the interstate is the Kingston Hall development which is mostly zoned for ED although there is a small AR tract just adjacent to the existing R1E zone in this vicinity. So generally, Russell Cave Road is residential in character, so the applicants proposing residential is sort of consistent with that area. They are proposing a development with an apartment complex, which includes 160 dwelling units for the subject property, as well as off-site or, excuse me, off-street parking. They are also proposing a clubhouse and a playground area for the residents of the neighborhood or of the apartment complex. So just a photograph of the subject property. It does remain vacant, although it has been in an urban zone since 1969 in this vicinity. In fact, in 1969, it was rezoned to a professional office zone at this location. and then it remained in that zone until 2006 when it was rezoned from P1 to an existing R1 E zone. There were two proposed zone changes between 1969 and 2006, and that was in both cases they were proposing the R3 zone, which is what the applicant is proposing today as well. Those two zone changes in 2000 and 2005 were both unsuccessful, but the 2006 rezoning was successful. The former comprehensive plan at this location, and again, it is just a vacant site. This is a view from Russell Cave Road and then the bridge across the interstate. um the former comprehensive plan from 2007 did recommend medium density residential at this location and the single-family zone that was proposed and its development plan in 2006 were in compliance with the 2007 plan recommendations at this point though the 2013 comprehensive plan no longer makes the land use recommendation but we do have the goals and objectives and policy statements from that plan to rely upon in terms of the 13 comprehensive plan the applicant cited several goals and objectives that they believe they were in compliance with first encouraging expanded housing choices including safe affordable and accessible housing supporting opportunities for infill providing well-designed neighborhoods with connections and mixed type housing and then encouraging development of underutilized and vacant land within the urban service area in addition the subject property is located within a recently adopted small area plan boundary for the windburn and russell cave neighborhoods and that was adopted just last year during the summer that small area plan outlined seven principles and as well as multi-family design guidelines so the in reviewing the small area plan the staff found that three of the principles were relevant to this proposed zone change as well as one of the housing goals well number four so the three guiding principles that are relevant to this request are increased transportation connectivity specifically relevant to ward drive promoting strategies to increase home ownership and improve housing conditions ensure infill is well designed and sensitive to existing neighborhoods and then the housing goal that the staff believes is relevant is expand affordable and quality rental opportunities through preservation of existing units and development of new units and then because this is a multifamily development proposal the appendix to the plan which includes the multifamily design guidelines is also relevant to this request. Within the, the staff did hand out a few items along with the staff report that you normally have at your seat related to the small area plan. The first packet is just excerpts from the plan, specific pages that are relevant to this request. And then the last or second one is all of the, I guess, design guidelines or standards outlined for three different areas. So the design guidelines identify standards for site planning, open space and landscaping, and then architectural design. When the staff reviewed this proposal relevant to the small area plan, there were some things that popped out. When they did the long-range planning section of the Division of Planning, worked with the consultant to do the plan, they did several public meetings, and part of the public meetings talked about land use. And in this particular, I think it's page 45, although residents in this area prefer single-family traditional housing, when multifamily is proposed, their preference was to give developments or have developments that were two and three stories. including a mix of materials, incorporating central courtyards and shared spaces. So those are parts of what is in the design guidelines that are to be considered by the commission and the staff when we review developments within this area. And that is a direct, you know, connection to the input that the staff received during the plan creation. Another part of the plan that was relevant to this is the connection of Ward Drive. Originally, their request did not include public streets, and so we did meet with the applicant several times to work through that issue and the importance of this connection out of Winburn, because currently there really is only one in and out for the Winburn subdivision. So this connection, although close to the other exit or entrance, is still vitally important to the success and redevelopment or revitalization of the neighborhood. So the small area plan identified Ward Drive as a secondary road connection in Phase 3, and also that there were some intersection improvements that would be needed. And then it goes on to further identify an advanced alert approaching Ward Drive and the possibility of a ride-in, ride-out at that location because of the site visibility across the interstate. There was a specific page within the Small Area Plan that called out this area of the larger Small Area Plan boundary. And in addition to the connectivity and access, you'll see it also, I believe it's page 80, it's probably the last page of the handout, identifies the importance of the land use and it really want to bring to your attention to two items the last two bullets which are if there's proposed higher intensity residential uses they shall be located away from the existing single family within the windbird neighborhood fabric and then second it should provide extensive landscaping for effective buffering along the interstate So those two specific recommendations from the plan, I believe, could be met with this development plan. First, there is no single family from the existing Windburn subdivision that is adjacent to the proposed development. Ward Drive swings low and provides two kind of open spaces along the boundary that is the Windburn subdivision. so there isn't a forced relationship between single-family and a multifamily. And then along Ward Drive, those are primarily multifamily in the R4 zone duplexes. Second, provide extensive landscaping. The staff is recommending a conditional zoning restriction for the subject property that would include a kind of beefed-up buffer along the interstate, above and beyond what Article 18 would generally require. so as to meet this small area plan recommendation. In terms of the specifics of the guidelines, the staff does believe they're meeting several of the design guidelines, and we feel that there are a number of others that would need to still be addressed at the final development plan stage. So the four that popped out in terms of being met clearly were the connection to the existing subdivision, providing parking behind the buildings and the buildings up on the public street, providing private open space in the form of a playground and clubhouse, and then also they did provide some design sketches for the staff to review and believe that the architectural details will enhance the building facades and provide a human scale because they are two-story structures as well. There were a number of the, I think I mentioned, of the design guidelines that really we couldn't assess if they were being met or maybe weren't being met, and the staff hopes that we'll be able to review those again with the applicant at the final development plan for further tweaking and further information but generally the staff believes that the goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan as well as the goals and principles of the small area plan have been met by the applicant with their proposal in terms of the r3 zone and in terms of the development that they're showing with their plan so we are recommending approval of the requested zone change and the zoning committee likewise recommended approval last well not last week last month for this proposed development and the findings are on the staff report and on the agenda as well as the two conditional zoning restrictions the staff is recommending I mentioned the buffer so a consistent 15 foot buffer along the interstate and then also to have reduced pole lighting heights within the parking lot and that's also part of the design guidelines to limit lighting and we believe those will that are necessary and appropriate for the subject property to ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan and specifically the small area plan for this area. I'd be happy to answer any questions from the planning commissioner at this time. Any questions? Ms. Wade, I have one just for clarification. When someone says multifamily, can an apartment complex be considered multifamily? It is. Generally, multifamily is what is referenced in the zoning ordinance. So anything with three or more units attached is considered a multifamily, whereas two units attached is generally a duplex. So apartment complex just means there are multiple structures that have multifamily in them. Congregation of the multifamily. Okay. I'll reserve later. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Applicant. Mr. Martin, there's your development plan. That's right. There is a development plan. I know you're tired of looking at me already today. No, no. I'm back from vacation, so everything is fresh. The preliminary development plan for this zone change that you see before you is located on page nine of your agenda, and we have also passed out to you on the yellow paper, revised staff recommendations for this plan. Here we have the Russell Cave Road frontage of the property. Here's the bridge, the overpass across the interstate I-75 running in this location. This, of course, is the Ward Drive extension as it comes down to here. They are proposing an access into the property at this location, as well as a secondary emergency access, which was a concern when you have this many people in a large development. it's always very helpful to have a second way in. And so they've added that particular emergency access in that location. You can see how the parking is internal and loops around the site. We have 21 buildings, one of which is a clubhouse. Here's a playground that they're proposing. They have 160 units that comprise 360 bedrooms. They're providing the required 328 parking spaces. They are two-story buildings. There's eight units per building. They have an FAR of .4 and a lot coverage of just over 22%, which is well within the guidelines for the zone that is being requested. Here and here, we have two large open areas that remain based on the alignment here of Ward Drive. This entrance will be somewhat further to the south from the existing road that runs into it. There is an existing pump station currently on the property, and staff has handed out, as you can see, revised conditions. We have standard preliminary development plan conditions on your first few conditions, the six. We have some cleanup conditions. Remove the copyright note. That's got to go away. This is now in the public realm. Addition to the final record plate information. Correct the plan title. That's just a matter of matching exactly what staff has named it, because that reflects the traditional name. It's how we track information. They can keep Elkhorn Springs as part of the name, but we just want the full name of the property, Winburn Estate Subdivision. Again, that's how your staff tracks development. Immunity has for years, and we try to avoid confusion. They need to correct a few notes. the FEMA note, there is no floodplain on the property. The note, unfortunately, says that there is, but there isn't. It's just a typo. So they just need to clean up a few things. Now, in addition to that, as Ms. Wade explained with the small area plan, and the small area plan had a tremendous impact on the area, and as you all are aware well, a lot of work went into it. This is a preliminary, so you can see note 13 says the addition of the words this plan's agreement with. They've added a note stating that they will agree with the lighting, the landscaping, the open space, and the design criteria of the multifamily buildings at the time of the final development plan, and that's all consistent with the small area plan as well. They'll need to do that. In addition, we're asking if they delineate an environmentally sensitive area that was discovered, and they reported that to you when they postponed the plan last time, there is drainage that flows through this property, an intermittent stream, and it impacts the property approximately in this area, and it flows on under the interstate and on in this direction to the north. And it does have an impact on the property. They will elaborate for you, no doubt, that they intend to mitigate this and pay a mitigation fee in order to address the environmental constraints on the property. We'd like to just have that area shown on this preliminary plan. In addition, we need them to denote that the pedestrian system per the small area plan shall be also resolved at the time of final development plan. That's literally the pedestrian system along the public road, Ward Drive in this instance. And interesting enough, that aspect of the small area plan talks about lighting and that sort of thing. So that's similar to the other concerns that were addressed for the parking lot to your conditional zoning. That is something, again, we believe should be addressed at final development plan. There's a couple of – oh, pardon me. Then improvements to Russell Cave Road. They are going to provide a turn lane, and we want that shown in the cross-section of Russell Cave Road, that there will be a turn lane provided into Ward Drive, a left turn lane. The access question into these open space areas that needs to be resolved is partially reflected in the cross section that they have on Ward Drive. They're not showing a sidewalk on this side. These are large and attractive open space areas. They're going to maintain them. And certainly we know children and small dogs and that sort of thing are going to be running and being tempted by these areas. The staff wants to resolve that issue. We believe crosswalks and a sidewalk will help provide better access into these open areas. Again, that is something that could be addressed at final development plan, but their cross-section is going to have to be a complete compliant cross-section at this time. If they want a waiver, they'll have to come back to you and request a waiver. But again, that will be inherent part of a discussion about access into these open space areas. So again, that was one concern. And then last but not least, you have a discussion item that you see on the capacity of the existing pump station and timing for removal. As you all are no doubt aware, at this time, a very large pump station is being constructed off of Providence Parkway near Newtown. That is going out to bid soon. If it hasn't already gone out to bid, I know it's in the design phase at least. They are purchasing easements for the trunk lines that will serve this area of our community. And, again, this body is very aware how important that is to that end of town. There's going to be several old pump stations taken out of service as they need to be. And one of them is this pump station. But we believe it's very important they denote the timing, because as they move forward, it can be difficult for them to be contingent upon the government's timetable and that additional work that must be done. Obviously, they have no control over that. And so the concern would be if at the time of final development plan and when they want to build and occupy these buildings, if they are going to have to depend on that existing pump station for a period of time. Again, that's just something we think is important to get on the table and make sure it's resolved as well. With that, your staff is recommending approval of the preliminary development plan at this time. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Bruce Simpson, on behalf of the applicant in this case, the principals of Elkhorn Development Company are here today, Chad Serk and Rick Pierce, along with Andrea Gardner, who's the construction manager, Jason Banks with Banks Engineering is our engineer, and Ron Thomas with Red Wing Ecological Services is also here in the event anyone has any questions. We're certainly pleased with the staff recommendation for approval both as to the zoning and the development plan. As Thomas explained, as typical in these cases there'd be some issues that'll need to be worked at the final development plan stage, but we need to get the zoning first. And so we're satisfied with both recommendations, recognizing that we'll be coming back on the final development plan with more details. Just a couple of points to amplify the staff's recommendation of approval. As Tracy noted, this property has been undeveloped inside the urban services area for 48 years. It's had two different zonings on it, professional office and single family, none of which has been successful. It's also interesting to note that this is an infill project. It is, again, adjacent to an existing neighborhood, a substantial neighborhood, Winburn. 1,400 people live in Winburn, and since 1969 they've had one way in and one way out, and that's Winburn Drive. It's been a problem. It's been a major safety problem, and in 1988 there was a substantial fire on Winburn and Gerald Drive that resulted in the loss of life of several people and serious injuries to others because there was a wreck at the entrance to Winburn Drive and Russell Cave and emergency vehicles weren't able to get in. So the residents of Winburn have been at risk since 69. There's been one major tragedy where, with this development, for the first time in 48 years will provide a second access to the Winburn neighborhood. It's also significant that this is an infill project. These are 160 units, and though they are handsomely designed, typically, as you have experienced over the years, generally people will come out in opposition to really any kind of change, thankfully for the lawyers. but in this case we don't, I say that tongue in cheek, in this case we don't have any objectors. And that's because we reached out to the neighborhood well before we filed this application. We had an initial meeting with the Winburn Board of Directors and then we had two full meetings with everybody in the legal notification area at the Wesley United Methodist Church. We had subsequent individual meetings. Chad Serk with the pastor of the church, who's very involved in this neighborhood, wants to see some major improvements. We've also advised Council Member Brown of what we're doing, so he has a heads up about it. And certainly we work with the staff. As you all well know, you don't get to the point on this kind of development, infill of this nature, without having a lot of meetings and complying with a lot of requests and negotiations, if you will, and getting an understanding of what is needed and what we can do to meet the demands of the staff. And also, very importantly, an added element in this particular case was the Winburn Small Area Plan. This took nine months to put together. It's the first major plan for the north end of Lexington since this neighborhood was developed. A lot of neighborhood went into it. And so with this application, because of the investment of neighborhood time and staff time, it could be long-range planning, they have scrutinized our application, and rightfully so, so that we come here today and we've resolved a lot of questions, and you don't have a lot of opposition because we have been transparent in terms of the information about our project, and people have understood it well before today's hearing, so we're pleased with that. In light of all of that, this is an $18 million improvement project for this part of the neighborhood. We do have some questions or answers or deal with some questions on our development plan. And as you recall, the last time this was scheduled, two weeks ago, I'd asked for a postponement because shortly before that hearing, we received a preliminary report from Red Wing Ecological Services that there were this intermittent stream on the property, which is predominantly dominated by storm sewer pipe, a 48-inch storm sewer pipe that comes out of Winburn Subdivision and empties onto this property. It only exists part of the year, part of the time it's just dry, but it meets the requirements on the Clean Water Act to have to be mitigated. And when we talk about mitigation, it means that the applicant has to pay a fee in lieu to deal with this problem or find property elsewhere in Fayette County to do mitigation. We looked, if you recall, about a year ago, 10 different properties in Fayette County and couldn't find a single property owner who would be willing to accept on-site mitigation because the restrictions are pretty substantial on their property, their private property. You have to stay 50 feet away from the stream, and it's a permanent restriction on you can't do anything, and so we couldn't get any volunteers to let us do on-site mitigation. So the practical effect is because of this stormwater-fed intermittent drainage way, the applicants are looking at paying $270,000 to the Army Corps of Engineers in order to put this in the same stormwater pipe that currently exists in WIMP. I won't go into the politics, the regulatory issues associated with having to do that. suffice it to say we're going to have to do that. And that was a reason for the postponement. We can delineate the area. We, in fact, looked at alternative design options to try to lower the cost. And in working with Red Wing under different design options, it wasn't going to have any significant change in what we were going to have to pay. So we left the design as is since we'd already vetted it through the neighborhood and the staff and even through the subdivision committee. So the other issue, I know, Mr. Piann, last time we met at the committee meeting level, you inquired about the access point on the Russell Cave Road, because you're very well familiar with that road. We met with District 7, asked them to see if we could move it further south. They said no. They needed it at the location that we had it because of the need for us to put in the left turn lane on Russell Cave, and there wouldn't be sufficient room to do that if we moved it further south. So for those safety reasons, they've determined that the location that we have it is the safest location. Now, there will be some other fill-in-the-gap provisions on the final development plan that we will again work through the staff with when we come back after zoning. But based on everything that we've done up to now over these last nine months, We are very pleased to have a very clean recommendation from approval from the staff and no opposition from anyone, and we ask for your approval. I'll be happy to respond to any questions, or any of the folks that are here with me today will be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. Any questions for Mr. Simpson? Okay, Mr. Penn. Mr. Simpson, you stated that there's 1,400 people that live in Winburn now. Do you know how many of them live in apartments and how many of them live in their own homes? I got this from the Winburn small area plan, so I mean the staff may know, but I don't know. In addition to the 1,400 that live there, there's another 500-plus schoolchildren that attend Winburn school, middle school there during the day, during the school year. Okay. And did the small area plan specifically talk about more apartments? It talked about mixed housing units, and it specifically talked about affordable housing, which is what this project is. This has been vetted through the Kentucky Housing Corporation. It's been vetted through the affordable housing program with the Urban County Government. I can tell you that they're very excited about the prospects of getting this approved. It's been much needed in our community for many years, and this is one of the specific emphasis in the Windberg Small Area Plan, is to have an affordable housing community. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. The fee that you pay, the $275,000, and the small stream that's sometimes there, sometimes not, it stays or it goes away. I'm sorry, what now? The stream stays or goes away after you pay the fee? After we pay the fee, we can put the stormwater in a stormwater pipe. Wherever you want to. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions for Mr. Simpson or any of his accomplices today? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. normally at this time i'd ask if there's anyone in the audience i don't think there's anyone here that wants to speak to that particular issue anyone on the commission have anything additional to say miss wade are you sitting for something else you need to you're so intuitive i was going to answer mr penn's question the small area plan does talk about the existing housing types and home values in the area, but it looked at the entire smaller plan boundary area. So there were 53% in single-family homes, so that leaves 47 in other types, 3% in townhouses, the attached single-family, 8% in duplexes, and then the rest in apartments, and it broke it down three to four unit apartments four percent units that are buildings that had five to nine units eight percent and then ten or more unit apartments 24 percent i'm guessing that's how many apartments on that slot kind of thing so but that took in other areas didn't just win right well yes in addition so everything between new circle and the interstate Russell Cave and Newtown. Any other comments, questions? Then in that case, we're ready, I think, believe for a motion. Or actually, we'll need two motions, one for the zone change, depending upon how that goes, and one for the development plan. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLN MAR 17-08, the Alcorn Springs Development LLC, with the staff recommendations. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we approve PLN MAR 17-8, Elkhorn Springs Development, LLC, with the conditions provided by, reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote? Okay, just a minute. We have a discussion item. Yes. I'm just very concerned, and I know this is a placeholder. I know it's a preliminary development plan, but I'm just very concerned about putting more apartments in the Windburn neighborhood. And these are new apartments. I understand that they'll certainly be more attractive than what's there now. I certainly hope they'd be better run than what's there now. But my concern is that, yes, we're giving people a place to live, but this community is not giving them a place to own their own home, affordable housing. and having grown up on the north end and having farm right across the interstate and have seen Ward Drive from the day Tommy Ward started it, it has morphed into something that's just not what he envisioned. He envisioned a multi-unit situation, but he also envisioned home ownership, and that has changed, and I was hoping that on the north side of town we could find someplace that we could build affordable housing that people could own. And it's not a reflection of your all's development plan. It's just this is something that I just really have a hard time wanting Winburn to have to absorb another 360, 180 units of apartments. Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, we'll continue with the vote. For those, please reflect your opinion on the... The ayes have it. Motion carries. In the second, we need another motion on the development plan. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLN-MJDP 17-17 Wilburn Estates Subdivision Unit 3 with the 17 staff recommendations. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we approve PLN-MJDP 17-17 Winburn of State Subdivision Unit 3 with the 17 conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, the ayes have it. The motion carries. Thank you. Do we have anything from the commission, Mr. Salley, anything from the staff, that is? Mr. Chairman, just a reminder, the commission does have a work session, only one this month, but it is next Thursday, and it will be in the third floor area of the Phoenix building. Thank you. That's correct. You said we have... That's right. We have two this month, one on the next week, the 15th, and one on the 29th. But that's important, too, because I have one other item that we need to morph into before we dismiss. Anything else from the staff perspective? Okay. One other thing, it's about that time, ladies and gentlemen, for the reconsideration for election of officers. According to that, we need a nominating committee. by parliamentary law the chair should not appoint a nominating committee. They should be elected. But for safety, just for the sake of moving things along, I did ask people to volunteer ahead of this particular meeting. But let me say to you that it's still open. If anybody wants to volunteer to be on the nominating committee, it's still open. But I'd ask the same nominating committee that we had last time, if they would be willing to perform the function again on that committee, was Ms. Plumlee, Mr. Cravens, and the surprise I had was Mr. Smith, who is no longer here. And I was told that by Mr. Owens, but in the process he also volunteered to step in for Mr. Smith if that was agreeable for the group. So those are the three names that we have, but it's not, like I said, it comes from the body. It should be elected. The three names, Mr. Cravens, Ms. Plumlee, and Mr. Owens. Now, if that's agreeable with everyone, I'll entertain a motion because they need to be elected by the body. I can't get anyone to elect this nominating committee. Do you need a motion? Yeah, we do. We need to officially elect this. I will move that the three members and chairs recommended be elected to the nominating committee. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Penn and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that the three members, Mr. Cravens, Ms. Plumlee, and Mr. Owens serve as a nominating committee. Now, according to the – oh, please, let's take the vote. All those in favor, would you please reflect it when it comes up on your screen? Okay. Now, with that said, let me go back to one other small item. according to the bylaws, the committee needs to meet at a planning session in the month of June, and I noted that we have two, so you've got a little time if you want to use June the 29th. The first option would be to maybe potentially double-check to see if the people who are currently in their positions want to serve again. Now, with that understanding, we have three members that are up for reappointment, reappointment, and there's nothing that says that we will be reappointed, although I think we've all agreed to serve if given the opportunity. But if that's the case and that happens when we're not, then you'll have to go back through the process again a little bit later. But for the most part, I've informed my staff and everybody that what we should do is just continue on. So with that, hopefully that you all will have a report back to us or a recommendation. Also, please note that the nominating committee, there's only six ways that you can nominate. Two of them, there are ways that we normally do it, and one is by we nominate, we open the nominations from the floor, and we also have a nominating committee. The other way is simpler. The chair also can nominate. You can also do it by petition. You can do it by mail. You can do it by ballot. Those are the ways that you deal with it. But in any event, we'll address all that when it comes time to do that. But I thank those who have agreed to volunteer to serve, and thank you for that. Any other additional issues that need to come before this body related to anything? If not, then without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you for your presence. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you.