# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - April 12, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 12, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4495 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4495?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-04-12 - **Last revised**: April 12, 2018 - **Length**: 12,917 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 April 12, 2018, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Wilson presiding. The commission addressed six agenda items during the session, taking a total of seven votes throughout the meeting. The meeting was characterized by multiple postponements, with four development-related items being deferred for future consideration, including the Pappert Property (AMD), Lansdowne Subdivision Unit 18-D Section 2 (Townhomes of Laredo) (AMD), Richardson Property (AMD), and East Seventh Street Addition. The commission did approve two items: the Consent Agenda and Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit. No public comments were heard during this session. ## Attendance The meeting on April 12, 2018 had ten members present and one member absent. **Present:** • Bill Wilson • Will Berkley • Headley Bell • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Carolyn Plumlee • Frank Penn **Absent:** • Carolyn Richardson No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took seven votes during the April 12, 2018 meeting, all passing unanimously with all 10 members present voting in favor. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from the February 22, 2018 and March 8, 2018 meetings, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 10-0. **Case Postponements** The commission voted to postpone four development cases: - **PLN-MJDP-18-00017** [timestamp: 01:30]: Patrick Brewer motioned to postpone the Pappert Property (AMD) to May 10, 2018, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed unanimously 10-0. - **PLN-MJDP-18-00022** [timestamp: 02:30]: Karen Mundy motioned to postpone Lansdowne Subdivision, Unit 18-D, Sec 2 (Townhomes of Laredo) (AMD) to April 26, 2018, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Passed unanimously 10-0. - **PLN-MJDP-18-00015** [timestamp: 03:30]: Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone the Richardson Property (AMD) to April 26, 2018, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously 10-0. - **PLN-MJDP-18-00018** [timestamp: 04:30]: Frank Penn motioned to postpone East Seventh Street Addition to May 10, 2018, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed unanimously 10-0. **Administrative Approvals** Two administrative matters were approved: - **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 05:30]: Karen Mundy motioned to approve all items listed on the Consent Agenda, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Passed unanimously 10-0. - **Performance Bonds** [timestamp: 06:30]: Mike Cravens motioned to approve the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously 10-0. All votes included the same 10 commission members: Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, Headley Bell, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, and Frank Penn. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among participants. **Access to South Broadway Development Plan** A contentious debate arose regarding vehicular access to South Broadway as part of a development proposal. The disagreement centered on traffic safety concerns and the appropriate level of access that should be permitted for the development. Staff members took a conservative position, recommending no vehicular access to South Broadway from the proposed development. This stance appeared to be based on traffic safety considerations and potential impacts to the existing roadway system. However, the no-access recommendation faced pushback during the discussion, leading to consideration of alternative approaches. As the debate progressed, participants explored a potential compromise solution that would allow limited access in the form of "right-in only" access to South Broadway. The right-in only option would permit vehicles to enter the development from South Broadway but would restrict left turns and exits back onto the roadway, potentially addressing some of the safety concerns while still providing vehicular access to the site. The heated nature of this discussion suggests there were strong opinions on multiple sides of the issue, with stakeholders weighing the competing interests of development access needs against traffic safety and roadway capacity concerns. The exploration of the compromise solution indicates that participants were working to find a middle ground between the staff's preferred no-access position and what appeared to be requests for fuller access rights. The ultimate resolution of this access question was not clearly indicated in the available information, suggesting this may have remained an ongoing point of contention requiring further deliberation. ## Pappert Property (AMD) [timestamp: 01:30] The commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00017, an amendment to the Pappert Property development plan. Rory Kahly served as the key speaker for this item. The proposed amendment aimed to revise the existing layout of the development and incorporate townhomes into the project design. However, the Subdivision Committee had already reviewed the proposal and identified significant compliance issues. The Subdivision Committee recommended postponement of the amendment, determining that the proposed plan does not meet the conditional zoning restrictions currently in place for the property. These restrictions appear to limit the types of development and layout configurations that can be approved for the site. The commission ultimately followed the Subdivision Committee's recommendation and postponed consideration of the Pappert Property amendment. This postponement allows the applicant time to revise their proposal to address the conditional zoning compliance issues before resubmitting for future consideration. The decision reflects the commission's adherence to established zoning requirements and the importance of ensuring all development proposals meet applicable restrictions before approval. ## Lansdowne Subdivision, Unit 18-D, Sec 2 (Townhomes of Laredo) (AMD) [timestamp: 02:30] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00022, an amendment for the Lansdowne Subdivision, Unit 18-D, Section 2, also known as Townhomes of Laredo. The proposed amendment seeks to create 16 lots and depict the townhouse development within the subdivision. Rory Kahly served as a key speaker during the discussion of this item. The amendment had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which recommended approval of the proposal. However, despite the committee's positive recommendation, a request was made for a two-week postponement of the item. The specific reasons for the postponement request were not detailed in the available information, but the commission ultimately granted the request. The meeting resulted in the item being postponed rather than receiving a final decision. This postponement will allow additional time for any outstanding issues to be addressed before the item returns to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Townhomes of Laredo development represents a residential subdivision project that would add 16 townhouse lots to the Lansdowne Subdivision area. The amendment process is necessary to formally establish the lot configurations and development parameters for the townhouse project within the existing subdivision framework. ## Richardson Property (AMD) [timestamp: 03:30] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00015, a development plan amendment for the Richardson Property. The proposal seeks to add 36 additional condominium units to the existing development plan. Tom Martin served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting details about the amendment request. The development plan amendment includes specific procedural requirements, including the posting of a sign at the property site and the submission of an affidavit confirming that the signage requirement has been fulfilled. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, the Subdivision Committee had already reviewed this proposal and issued a recommendation for postponement. The committee's recommendation carried significant weight in the commission's consideration of the item. Following discussion of the amendment and consideration of the Subdivision Committee's guidance, the Planning Commission voted to postpone action on PLN-MJDP-18-00015. The postponement allows additional time for review of the proposal to add the 36 condominium units to the Richardson Property development. The decision to postpone means the amendment will return to the Planning Commission at a future meeting for further consideration and potential action. ## East Seventh Street Addition [timestamp: 04:30] The Planning Commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00018, the East Seventh Street Addition subdivision proposal. Tom Martin served as the key speaker for this item. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this proposal and recommended postponement of the matter. The committee identified several outstanding issues that required resolution before the project could move forward: • Questions regarding the proposed use or uses for the development remained unresolved • Required parking provisions needed clarification and additional detail • The application lacked required information necessary for proper review Due to these deficiencies identified by the Subdivision Committee, the Planning Commission postponed consideration of the East Seventh Street Addition. The postponement allows the applicant time to address the committee's concerns and provide the missing information needed for a complete review of the subdivision proposal. The decision to postpone ensures that all necessary details regarding land use, parking requirements, and other regulatory requirements will be properly documented and reviewed before the commission takes action on the subdivision request. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 05:30] The Consent Agenda contained eleven items, consisting of nine development plans and two plans requested for reapproval. All items had been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Subdivision Committee. Traci Wade presented the Consent Agenda to the meeting participants. The agenda included various development plans that had undergone the standard review process through the Subdivision Committee prior to being placed on the consent agenda for final approval. The two reapproval requests were for plans that had previously been approved but required renewed approval, likely due to timing requirements or updated circumstances that necessitated fresh authorization. Since all items on the Consent Agenda had received unanimous recommendation for approval from the Subdivision Committee, they were presented as a package for streamlined approval without individual discussion of each item's merits. The Consent Agenda was approved as presented, allowing all nine development plans and two reapproval requests to move forward in the development process. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 06:30] The board considered the approval of the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit during this agenda item. Mike Cravens presented the matter to the board for their consideration. The discussion focused on the standard administrative process of managing performance bonds and letters of credit, which are financial instruments used to ensure contractors and other parties fulfill their contractual obligations. These bonds and letters of credit typically require periodic review and action by the governing body to either release them upon satisfactory completion of work or call them in cases of non-performance. The specific details of which bonds or letters of credit were being addressed, the amounts involved, or the projects they were associated with were not detailed in the available materials. However, this type of agenda item is routine for government bodies that oversee construction projects, service contracts, or other agreements requiring financial guarantees. Following Cravens' presentation, the board approved the recommended actions regarding the performance bonds and letters of credit. No significant concerns or debate were noted during the discussion of this item. The approval allows staff to proceed with the appropriate administrative actions, whether releasing bonds for completed satisfactory work or taking action on bonds where performance issues may have occurred. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of the minutes of the February 22, 2018 and March 8, 2018 meetings - **PLN-MJDP-18-00017** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Pappert Property (AMD) to May 10, 2018 - **PLN-MJDP-18-00022** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Lansdowne Subdivision, Unit 18-D, Sec 2 (Townhomes of Laredo) (AMD) to April 26, 2018 - **PLN-MJDP-18-00015** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Richardson Property (AMD) to April 26, 2018 - **PLN-MJDP-18-00018** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of East Seventh Street Addition to May 10, 2018 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of items listed on the Consent Agenda - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit --- ## Full transcript And they'll get you in touch with that. You can go on our web page and you can find all kinds of information about that. What I will tell young people today is whatever you see on TV about policing, don't look at that. Come and check it out for yourself. I didn't have any clue about what policing was about when I applied, and I love it, and I'm glad I made that choice. There are a lot of different aspects to policing, so don't just go by what you hear. look at it for yourself. It's like any other job. You expect to do a task, expect to perform well, and you will succeed. I think one of the unique things about our police department, I know it's recognized as one of the best ones in the country, but in terms of education, what we encourage our officers, what type of education, the college degrees, the masters, we really put emphasis on that here and I think that's paying big dividends for the men and women with the police department and the citizens of Lexington. Yes, sir. Studies show that studies show that the more educated your officers are the more resourceful and the more able they are to resolve conflict peacefully so we stress education we even pay pay for officers to obtain additional education and we send them to training whenever we can well there you go young people if you want to be a police officer go to our website lexingtonky.gov and look what our police department has to offer you and what you can offer your community Chief, we wish you much success as the new police chief of Lexington. We know we're in good hands, sir, and thank you for being on my show today. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. You've been watching the Stenet Minute. I am council member at large Kevin Stenet. Thank you for watching. Oh, my love, only my love does it good to be Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Every night I'm lying in bed Holding you close in my dreams Thinking about all the things that we say And coming apart at the seams We tried to talk it over But the words come out to love I know you were trying To give me the best of your love Beautiful faces Loud empty places Look at the way that we live Wasting our time On cheap talk and wine Left us so little to give That same old crowd Was like a cold dark cloud That we could never rise above But here in my heart I give you the best of my love Oh, sweet darling You get the best of my love You get the best of my love Oh, sweet darling You get the best of my love You get the best of my love I'm going back in time And it's a sweet dream It was a quiet night And I would be alright If I could go on sleeping But every morning I wake up and worry What's gonna happen today? You see it your way I see it mine But we both see it slipping away You know we always had each other, baby I guess that wasn't enough But here in my heart I give you the best of my love Oh, sweet darling You get the best of my love The best of my love, sweet dog You get the best of my love The best of my love, sweet dog Every night and day You get the best of my love The best of my love, sweet dog Oh, oh, you get the best of my love. The best of my love, sweet dog. You get the best of my love. You get the best of my love. The best of my love, sweet dog. You get the best of my love. The best of my love. Sweet darling You got it, you got it You got it, you got it, you got it You got it, you got it, you got it You got it, you got it, you got it Maybe all I got's this beat up leather bag And everything I own don't fill a path But don't you worry about the way I pack All I care about is getting back real soon A goodbye kiss is all I need from you I'm carrying your love with me West Virginia down to Tennessee I'll be moving when the good Lord speak Carrying your love with me It's my strength for holding on Every minute that I have to be gone I'll have everything I'll ever need I'm carrying your love beneath On a lonely highway Stuck out in the rain Darling, all I have to do Is speak your name The clouds roll back and the waters part The sun starts shining in my heart for you You're right there in everything I do Cause I'm carrying your love with me West Virginia down to Tennessee I'll be moving with the good Lord's feet Carrying your love with me It's my strength of holding on Every minute that I have to be gone I'll have everything I'll ever need I'm carrying your love with me I'm carrying your love with me West Virginia down to Tennessee I'll be moving with the good Lord's feet Carrying your love with me Thank you. 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've got I call the church of your love It came old overnight I must have held you to die Last night caught a touch 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 in my system and it's driving me mad Caught a touch of your love It came on overnight I must have held you to dry 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 a touch of your love It came on overnight I must have held you too tight Last night and called a church of your love Thank you. ¶¶ Oh, I called a touch of your love. It came on overnight. I thought I held you too tight last night. And called a touch of your love. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to the April 12, 2018 Urban County Planning Commission meeting. Welcome to those of you in the audience. Welcome to all of the staff and special welcome to all of the commission members. I've been asked to make this one special announcement before we start. If there's anyone here that deserves, not deserves, but would want to speak, there is a sign-up sheet, and we'd appreciate it if you would take a moment to put your name on that list so we'll know who you are and can follow up in contact with you. With that, approval of the minutes. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move approval of February 22nd and March the 8th, 2018 minutes. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy. that we approve the minutes of February the 22nd, 2018, and March 8th, 2018. Any discussion on the motion? If you know, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? As have it, the motion carries. Postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. If we could start on page four. Item E, Major Subdivision 18-17, Papert Property. request a one-month postponement to May 10th. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular proposal item? Chairman Wilson, I'll just clarify that that is actually a major development plan, not a major subdivision plan. There was an error on our agenda. It's a major development? Yes. They may go back to subdivision once I take the townhouses off. Okay, and that's one month of supposing. Could I get a motion on that? Mr. Brewer? I move for a post-ponding one month of the PLN, I guess, MDP. Did I get the acronym right? Okay, that's good enough. Mr. Brewer makes the motion that Ms. Karen Mundy seconds that we approve the PLN MJS SUB 18-17 PAPA property as amended. Any other discussions on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. Motion carries. And on to page six. Top of that page, item I, Major Development Plan 18-22, Lansdowne Subdivision. Request a two-week postponement to the April 26th meeting. We've got most of the discussion items worked out. There's one more to go through. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular postponement item or request? If not, I'm going to take a motion here from the panel. Ms. Mundy. Yes. Mr. Chair, thank you. I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 1822 Lansdowne Subdivision Unit 18D Section 2 for two weeks, which would be April 26th. Okay. the motion has been made by Ms. Karen Mundy, passed by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLN-MJDP 18-22 Lansdowne Subdivision Unit 18-D Section 2 for two weeks or until April 26. Any other discussion on the motion? Not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay, Mr. Mark. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page 3 of your agenda, item C, this is a major development plan, 18-15, Richardson property amended. This is property located at 300 Hannah Todd Place. The applicant is requesting a two-week postponement. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this postponement request? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Okay, Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, thank you. We move postponement of PLN MJDP 18-15, Richardson property for two weeks between April 26. Okay, the motion has been made by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, a second by Mr. Larry Foster, that we postpone PLN MJDP 18-15 Richardson property as amended for two weeks or until April 26. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page 4 of your agenda, this is a major development plan. It's item F, Major Development Plan 18-18, East 7th Street Edition. The applicant has notified staff that they would like to request a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this postponement request? Anyone on the commission? I'll be ready for a motion. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for one month postponement to the May 10th meeting for PLN-MJDP 1818. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we postpone PLN-MJDP 18-18 East 7th Street edition for one month or until May the 10th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Floor is still open. Okay, Ms. Wade we'll move to you then for our consent agenda. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. We do have a number of items that do appear on the consent agenda today. Actually, a total of nine development plans and then two plans on the back that are requested for reapproval. So we'll run through those. If there's anyone in the audience or anyone on the Planning Commission that would like to remove something for further discussion, you can let us know when I finish reading the consent agenda. The first item does appear on page two of your agenda. It's a development plan, and it's at the bottom of page 2. Item A, PLN MJDP 17-94. The applicant is Lees Town VA Housing. That project is located at 2250 Lees Town Road, or a portion of. Our second item is on page 3, and it's item B. It's PLN MJDP 18-6. The application is by Hamburg Place, or the plan name is Hamburg Place, B5P and B6P Area Highway Commercial for Lot 9. This is an amended final development plan for property at 2344 Elkhorn Road. Our next item appears also on page 3, and it's item D, PLN MJDP 18-16 for Hamburg East, Lot 4, also known as the Polo Club at Hamburg Place, and this also is an amended final development plan for property located at 1825 Little Herb Way. And we do have an affidavit of a signposting for that property as required by the zoning ordinance, and it does appear to be in order with the photograph as well. continuing down on page 5 item h pln mjdp 18-21 for the campbell house in and investment properties an amended plan for property located at 1375 south broadway on page 6 item j pln mjdp 18-23 for the sharky property unit 1 lot 16 this is for property located at 1745 sharky way on page 7 item m pln mjdp 18-26 for coventry also known as belmont farm for an application for the LBX company property is located at 2490 Remington Way also on page 7 item in PLN MJDP 18-27 Viley Heights unit 3C lot 1 C Leo properties another amended final development plan for property at 1389 Alexandria Drive continuing on to page 8 of the agenda item O PLN MJDP 17-42 this is a continued discussion item that was recommended for approval by the subdivision committee and it's for RML citation Hillemeyer interest limited property located at 2551 leestown road and then the last one on page page one of your consent agenda is located on page 10 of the larger agenda item r and this is a minor plan that was referred to the planning commission for action it is pln mndp 18-2 for lexington mall southland christian church and more specifically for chick-fil-a this is also an amended development plan for property located at 2299 richmond road on page two of the consent agenda on the back there were two plans that are recommended for re-approval by the subdivision committee they appear we'll have to flip back a few pages in the regular agenda to page eight item p this is a preliminary subdivision plan for belmont farm with a case number from 2005 so plan 2005-321p belmont farm unit 7 also known as Coventry, for property located at 2400 and 2450 Georgetown Road. And then the last one on our consent agenda today is on page 9 and is item Q for a DP 2012-62 Victory Apostolic Church Incorporated for property located at 1420 Greendale Road. All of these items were recommended for approval by the subdivision committee and do qualify to be approved in one motion. If the Planning Commission or, as I mentioned, anyone in the audience would like to have any of those items discussed, now would be the time to request that. Thank you. Does anyone want to pull any of these items from the audience that they would like to have further discussion on? Is there anyone on the Commission that would like to pull any of these items for additional discussion? if not then we'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda miss monday thank you mr chair i move for approval of the consent agenda agenda as presented today by staff okay it's been moved by miss karen monday second by miss carolyn plumbly that we approve the consent agenda as presented by staff any other discussions on the motion hearing no would you Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Ayes have it. Motion carries. So we can set up for the very first one. In the meantime, without objection, if you look at the very, very back of your agenda, Mr. Cravens, item C on the very last page, page 10, performance bonds, letters of credit. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, move approval of the release and call of bonds. second well mr forrester beat you to it mr craven's is the mover mr forrester is a seconder to approve the performance of the call of bonds any discussion on the motion if not would you please vote when that comes up on your screens motion carries so we've taken care of that now mr martin i think we're ready for you mr chairman members of the planning commission you notice it didn't take staff long to set up for this first plan this is a brand new day you see the electronic color presentation in that case mr martin i'll move for adjournment all right excellent i'm sorry for that distraction but go ahead and i just want to state for the record as well that But regardless of my age, I am in full support of this new technology. However, I will tell you, because my eyes are a little bit older, I like being able to see the plans up close. So with that, this is a final record plat for the property out on Russell K. Road, and I am not going to massacre that name for you. It is the mosque that is located on Russell K. Road. It's been out there for several years now. It was approved by the BOA. And they are before you today to subdivide the property, as you can see on the screen. And they are proposing to subsidize a lot situated there in the middle of the property. Now, this is a remnant AU lot on Russell Cave Road. Basically, all the property around it got planted over the years. And this is a remnant AU lot. and then the mosque bought it and received BOA approval to conduct their religious services and worship at this location. There is a BOA development plan. They're utilizing an existing structure on the property and they built a mosque. In the purple that you can see is the proposed access easement, which reflects the parking areas and the drive aisles on that BOA plan. And that access easement will serve as the frontage and access for that middle interior lot that they are proposing. And that lot is a small lot, about .23 acres. And then the remnant is a little over three acres. The frontage on that existing lot does not conform to AU. It's an older, non-conforming lot. The reason that they are here before you, as you all well know, for record plants, they're here because they have a waiver request that they need you to approve. And the waiver is for the frontage requirement to create this AU lot, as well as a finding that the access easement will suffice to serve this particular lot. Now, the reason for this is interesting, and that is in order to satisfy a state statute, it's an administrative statute for funeral homes, in order, apparently years ago, the state decided in order to prevent funeral homes from showing up in strip malls, they had to be on their own lot. And this is the facility that the mosque is using for their funeral ceremonies and preparing the body and that sort of thing for transfer out to their cemetery. So it is an important aspect of their religious practice and following the requirements of that practice. So that is why you see that before you today. Staff has reviewed this. it was reviewed there are no stormwater no sanitary sewer issues with this this is has an access easement being proposed to provide frontage to this lot and with that staff is recommending approval of the plat as long as well as the waiver and I'll answer any questions you may have for staff any questions for mr. Martin. Okay, thank you applicant. Good afternoon. I'm Justin jury with 2020 land surveying. Um, here representing the owners of the property and the, uh, attendees of the mosque, uh, that is on the property and, uh, here to answer any questions you might have. Yes, we have one question. Mr. Mr. Penn. That's subdivided lot. Will it remain in the same ownership, just be a different lot? The mosque will own both of them. Yeah, the sole purpose at this time is just to have the facility that they're going to be doing the funeral services on a separate lot from the mosque building. There's no ownership going to change just to satisfy that state requirement. It would be separately deeded though? I would assume they would probably, yes, write a deed to themselves, I guess would be how they would do it. I'm sure that would be part of the state requirement. Thank you. I just want to get that on the record. Anyone else? Thank you. Anyone in the audience want to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Okay, then we'll ready for a motion. I think we'll need one for the plat and then one for the waiver plus the findings, if you don't mind. Mr. Berkley? Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of Plan MJ-SUB-18. 10 with the 12, well, actually we'll only need 11 of these conditions afterwards, right? You're right. I think just the first 11 conditions. Mr. Martin, we can strike number 12, right, on the conditions. We're substituting that for the findings. I mean, we're going to deal with the waiver and the findings a little bit later, so do we need to put 11 or 12? Oh, you did not hear me. Okay, I'm looking on page 2 at the top. We have 12 conditions identified by staff. Well, should it be 11 plus? Condition number 12 can go away. That was resolved. Okay. that there were no issues with saying. Okay, thank you. Okay, so it's the motion of 11. Okay, Mr. Berkeley moved and Mr. Larry Foster second that we approve the PLNMJSUB 18-10, which is the mosque located at 1545 Russell K. Road, Lexington, Kentucky. Any discussions on that motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when that comes up on your screens? Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of the findings for the petition for the waiver for Plan MJSUB 18-10 for the reasons cited by staff. Okay. Mr. Berkeley moves and Mr. Larry Foster seconds that we approve the waiver plus findings for PLN MJSUB 18-10. That's the Moss property located at 1545 Russell Cave Road. any discussions on the motion please vote when it comes up on your screens thank you the motion carries very much Thank you. major subdivision plan 18-9 Ted Osborne and Thomas Wood property it's also known as Mill Pond unit 1B and we have passed out to you revised conditions on the lavender sheet of paper this is property that's located on Boston Road a little bit past the shopping center as you head up the hill more towards the rear of the shopping center you can see that there is frontage of this property on boston road along with access off mill ridge road this is a little over three acres it's a old it's been platted before but it's an older remnant tract that has some site constraints and topography issues on the property you approved a plan on this property not long ago for townhouses I'm sure many of you remember that, if not all of you remember the townhouse development that was approved. And with that, I believe there are 27 units and access to Boston Road, along with some landscaping issues relative to the adjoining property. The applicant, in preparing their infrastructure plans and their grading plans for that townhouse development, realized that the site constraints and the topographic issues presented a challenge, really too much of a challenge in terms of expense for that particular development. Subsequently, they have filed with you a preliminary subdivision plan to develop single-family homes on this property. There are 13 lots being proposed. There are several items. This is a revised plan, and they address some of the cleanup items on the original plan. There are still several items to be resolved, along with several waivers, and we have passed a report out to you. There are actually, in essence, three waivers associated with this property. You can see that three of the lots that front on the cul-de-sac, we labeled those for you, another nice aspect of this technology and they've denoted on the plan that there's no access to boston road from those three lots that you can see that do in fact have access off of mill ridge extension the new cul-de-sac the other lots that remain on boston road will have driveway access and that is one of the conditions conditions number 15 that they'll have to resolve those driveway access is to the satisfaction of our traffic engineering division. They have been working with them on that, and I know that at least two of those lots have been addressed as of today. Also, there's a reserve detention on this plan, and that's connected to the previous plan with the townhouses. they actually showed a detention basin on that particular plan. They no longer show a detention basin, and the need for detention and water quality will be addressed through and will be resolved by the infrastructure plan that will be submitted to the Division of Engineering and approved by them. Along those same lines, it is the reason that we have 10 and 11 conditions, 10 and 11 really and one is to delete note number 14. This is a note that states they're going to join the HOA and they're going to utilize the existing retention. Well, first of all, we have no control, neither do you, over whether or not they join the HOA and that's fine. We certainly hope they do. Secondly, it references the retention basin as where they are going to utilize their detention that's required. Well, again, that's an aspect of the infrastructure plan and will have to be approved by the Division of Engineering. It may well prove to be what feature they're allowed to use, but again, they may have some other issues to address, which is normal through the infrastructure plan, and staff felt it was no need to have that reference on the development plan to prevent any misunderstanding. Along with that, delete the number 11, delete the vegetative buffer reference in note 13. I believe what they actually intended to reference was the 25-foot setback from the floodplain. The vegetative buffer will vary as it's based on the top of the creek. This is a retention basin. And again, that's a stormwater manual provision. They will have to address that through their infrastructure plan. No need, again, to even reference that on this particular type of plan. So moving on, there is a resolve of landscaping for a previous plan. This is a challenge, obviously, for a single-family development. that landscaping was originally imposed on the townhouse plan, and it was done so out of regard for the adjoining neighbors. How to address that on a single family to single family is a concern. Staff is willing to resolve that with the applicant. They have stated an intent to talk with the HOA as well as the adjoining neighbors to address any concerns they may have for some additional landscaping along the existing lots with these new lots. And primarily those are the ones that you see next to Mill Ridge Road is where that concern exists today. I would say staff is not, we're not terribly concerned about their ability to address it, but it was an important requirement on the previous plan. And with that, I'd like to discuss the three waivers that are associated with this plan. As stated, this site has topographic and site constraints. It was exposed rock on the site. It's rather high in the middle and drops down in two directions. You can see the odd configuration, and Boston Road, of course, is existing. It's been there for years. Mill Ridge Road as well. and with the existing lotting pattern and then the aforementioned floodplain and retention basin that borders the property as well. These are all constraints that staff is well aware of on this site. And it is those items that are the primary driving force behind the waiver requests. The first waiver request, there's three. I'll go down them in order. I don't know which one. you'd consider first necessarily, but they did address first the sanitary sewer request. There are five lots, lots 4, 8, 11, 12, and 13, and we've placed little stars, blue stars on those lots so you can see where they're located. They have requested a sanitary sewer waiver in service to those lots because based on their proposed design, there will need to be laterals from adjoining properties. So what they're requesting is a lateral to serve these lots, which will actually have to extend onto someone else's property. They have stated in their letter that this is due to several items, one of which they want all these homes to have walkout basements. And again, with the topography, it's very possible that the houses on these lots could have walkout basements. But they would like to provide the opportunity for all those walkout basements to have a sanitary sewer facility, a bathroom. And for those lots that I've mentioned, 4, 8, 11, 12, and 13, to have a sanitary sewer system that is gravity flow, they need this waiver. They have cited as well that they are aware that there's an alternative design. There is another way to serve these properties and serve them all with gravity lines. Their concern with that is that it will be in the rear of the properties along the retention basin that is there. And then there's tree protection areas. Staff spent a considerable time, we've discussed this with the Division of Engineering. The Division of Engineering has stated that they have serious concerns with the proposed sewer design on this property. and that they believe that this property can be sewered in full compliance with the storm, not storm, but the engineering manuals, the land subdivision regulations, with no need for a waiver, and they can address the conflicts that exist with some of the site features, including the tree protection areas. And just to tell you, tree protection areas are only as good as construction is going on. The fact of the matter is, when those are private property and somebody wants to clear their property or cut down the trees, they can do so. And they do that. That's a discussion for another time, whether or not we need to strengthen our tree protection areas. But, again, that has been their stated rationale for the waiver. And, again, I'll repeat in discussions with our Division of Engineering, they don't believe the waiver is necessary. The second waiver that they're requesting is for the lot configuration. Your subdivision regulations strongly encourage certain geometries. Now, granted, they can't all be met in every circumstance. And certainly, the regs actually address cul-de-sacs and the fact that the dramedy will be a little different around cul-de-sacs. This property, as you can see, is oddly conformed. Its configuration is a challenge. The topography is a challenge. So they have several lots that you can see. They've addressed lot 12, but in staff's opinion, there's other lots that could be addressed by this requested waiver as well in terms of their geometry. And those would be the one on Boston Road that you can see with the incredible long frontage and the finger that extends up. And that is very much a reflection of the creek, the topography, and the road with that lot. Lot 12, they're attempting to utilize the topography to provide a lot with a nice house site overlooking the retention basin and that amenity. And then the two lots at the front on Mill Ridge Road, you can see that that geometry is very unusual. But again, they're doing that to maximize the lots on this property and utilize the property in lieu of the site constraints and the topography issues. So staff believes that that waiver is justified based on the site configuration and those issues. Again, lot geometry is strongly recommended. It's not an absolute. And so with that, I will address, there is one item with lot 12. You can see that long, long little dog leg coming down from it. It currently does not meet the 25-foot frontage requirement for an R3. That's an easy adjustment of five feet, and it actually will meet the frontage requirement for a single-family lot in the R3. Nonetheless, it is still, as you can see, a very odd configuration. There is one final waiver associated with this preliminary subdivision plan, And that is the cul-de-sac, which is extended off of Mill Ridge Road. Mill Ridge Road is a public street. I believe it started out as a private street, and they were accepted as public streets sometime in the past. It has a little more narrow right-of-way than would be our normal practice today. And with the cul-de-sac extension that you see before you, they're requesting a reduction of right-of-way by 10 feet. The practical impact of that is that the sidewalks will be in an easement as opposed to the right-of-way. In our review and discussions with them, they've agreed to parking restrictions so that our emergency vehicles, fire, and those other folks will not have a problem accessing the homes on this cul-de-sac. So they have addressed that concern. That, of course, is a paramount concern to staff always is the access by public safety. So, again, with that, all these waivers are based on the topography and the site configuration and those issues, and staff would agree that the cul-de-sac modification, it'll function, and it'll function in a safe manner. So staff is recommending approval of the subdivision plan that you see before you. We are recommending approval of the waiver on the cul-de-sac. We're recommending approval of the lot configuration, the geometry. We are, however, again, I'll say recommending disapproval of the sanitary sewer waiver. And we firmly agree with the Division of Engineering that they can meet the manuals, engineering manuals and the subregs and sewer this property effectively and in compliance and with that i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have any questions for mr martin thank you applicant good afternoon it almost feels like spring today it does one minor thing that i'd like to point out on the exhibit that staff added a label that says no access to Boston Road, which we love that they can do that within the digital constraints, but that label should be shifted south one lot. The label with the word road, or the lot with the word road on it, actually does front Boston Road. So I'll try to say that again. That label with the blue box around it actually should be shifted down one lot because you'll notice that the lot with the word road on it doesn't touch the cul-de-sac just wanted to make that minor explanation and that's clear on on the the drawing in the small tinier print that is on there but i just this if i may this might clarify there is to be no access and this is on the plan to Boston Road from lots 4, 5, and 6. Is that what the applicant is saying? What's the number where road is? That's lots of. Yeah, we're a little bit confused about the numbers. Okay, I got you. Okay. Just for my clarification, are you agreeing with what we're saying is no access? Yes. Okay. but not on lot seven correct okay all right okay go ahead so hopefully we've cleared that up I just didn't want to not mention that we have looked preliminarily at the design for the existing retention pond to be able to accommodate the drainage and so we're confident that we're going to be able to work through that particular item number 14 on the list with the engineering staff so we look forward to resolving that further and we have on 15 been working very closely with Casey and traffic engineering on those driveway locations did you want to speak to the landscaping for just a moment Tony briefly Tom made reference to it we're going to take the we've been in communication with the HOA association. We're not, that's a process to be annexed or into the association, so we have to work that out. But preliminarily, we think we're heading in that direction. And as a part of that, we have to meet their covenants and restrictions on architecture. And what we'd like to do is take the landscape plan, make that part of the hoa review i think that as we present the the architecture and the house layout or the lot layout to the hoa and make that part of it so kind of resolve itself with with the people that are most affected by it so so the other items we're pleased with the the staff suggestion for approval on the the two waivers we wish that we could have approval on the other one but if we have to have some lots that don't have basement bathrooms then that's just how it's going to have to be any questions for the applicant mr berkeley so so that's basically what's going to happen is you're going to lose the basement on those lots is that no bathrooms because or the the bathrooms in the basement on those lots you would lose i think i think we have some other options that we'll explore and we'll look through that i i think we'll work work our way through that we'll either uh talking with engineering just a moment ago i think we can do what we want to do but we We also have some other options to move it behind the houses, and that would accomplish what we're looking to do as well. I think we're okay. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Generally, are there any other questions that you have for you, the applicant, the staff? or we won't have to go through the formal rebuttal if everybody has said everything they need to say. Okay. Well, in that case, then, are we ready for a motion? Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of Plan MJ-SUB 18-9 with the 16 noted conditions by staff. And I think it would probably be a good idea to go ahead and put 17 on there and just say no access to Boston Road for lots 4, 5, and 6. So we can clarify that. that's lots four five and six yes okay mr berkeley has moved mr craven to second that we approve pln mj sub 18-9 ted osborne and thomas and wood property millwood unit 1b located at 3900 boston avenue with 17 conditions identified by staff the 17th being no access to Boston Road on Lots 4, 5, and 6. Any discussion on the motion? And now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay. And I'm going to move for approval of the waiver for Plan MJSUB 18-9, the first one being the waiver for Article 6-4. B and D and the second one being for Article 6.8A What about the third one? I've moved for approval of those two. I don't think I can make a motion for disapproval. What you could do is simply say you'd make a motion to accept the recommendations of staff which would cover all three i would be fine with that okay if that's agreeable if that's the case that means when the recommendations of the staff are approval for the first two just approved for the third now if you got a problem with that then we'd pull it off and vote on them separately we're good if that motions are good with you mr berkeley okay then mr berkeley moves uh okay uh mr craven seconds that we approve PLN, MJ, SUB 18-9, Ted Osborne, and Thomas Woods, the waivers. We are approving the recommendations of staff related to approval of 6-4, Article 6-8, and with disapproval of Article 6-2. Any other discussion on the motion? 6-2 and 6-6. 6-2 and 6-6. I'm sorry, one modification to the motion, 6-2 and 6-6. Any other discussion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Galt. Hello. Good afternoon. You all can see everyone has a copy of the revised conditions on a blue piece of paper. This is Manor Ward Development Unit 2A, Home 2 Amendment. They were in a little while ago and they created Hotel A up at the back here. And they also created this little strip shop here with restaurants in. Now they're coming in for Hotel B in this area. And they had come to the subdivision committee and they had revised plans. and we were able to take a look at those revised plans and we were able to come up with the revised conditions. So currently what we have left are just typical sign-offs from different governmental agencies and one just to remove a plus symbol from the face of the plan on site statistics. Other than that, that's all we have. If anybody has any comments, questions. Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Applicant. Yes, sir. Jason Baker from Ryan Engineering, my client. I have no problems with the removal of the plus-minus sign as discussed there. all the other items are ongoing through the normal channels. Good. Any questions? Mr. Penn has a question for you. Well, that's kind of a statement. I want to thank you for working with the staff to clean this up. We made a lot of progress and we certainly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments by the commission? Any questions? Any comments? Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay. If not, thank you. Any other questions? If not, we're ready for additional. Okay, Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 18-19 Manal War Development Unit 2A amended with the nine conditions as designated by staff. It's been moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we approve PLN MJDP 18-19 Manowar Development Unit 2A, Home 2 as amended, located at 1750 Pleasant Ridge Drive here in Lexington, Kentucky, with the eight conditions identified by staff. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Okay. We're heading over to the Hamburg Place Community, Phase 2. This is the West Wind area over off of Old Rosebud, Flying Ebony, Starshoot Parkway. We have Flying Ebony down here, Starshoot Parkway. This is Old Rosebud, and it stops back here. Flying Ebony comes through, and it stops in here. They've come in with a preliminary plan to do some revisions. You'll have a green sheet with some revised conditions on. Here's Flying Ebony Drive and Old Rosebud here. And this property here at the end of Flying Ebony had come in with single family. Now they're coming back showing townhomes. They still have flood area through here, and they have a portion of property down here that they would have to cross to get to. They also have Old Rosebud here which is proposed to go through here. And right here in this area is part of a reservation for Old Rosebud as it connects, when it connects towards Liberty Road when that road goes through. They have revised conditions with typical sign offs. We just have to have a few clean up conditions. There's this record plat designation, clarify building coverage, resolve the driveway, intersections at Old Rosebud and Flying Ebony Drive. There was some question as to, they meet the minimum requirements as far as setback, but just as far as what might be coming through here to connect over to Starshoot, the traffic. There was a barrier and we want to see that removed. the plant ebony to go towards old rosebud further we have one to note no development in the area across the floodplain until old rosebud is extended to provide street frontage that would be this area here because we don't see a bridge coming too soon we thought that with old rosebud coming they would have that connection and they would be able to have street frontage to put proposal on there With that, I open it to you all if you have any comments or questions. Any questions for Ms. Galt? Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. We're good with the conditions. I would like to briefly discuss number 16. What we're hoping is that as an alternate note, possibly just saying resolve access to the rear property should it be developed at the time of the final development plan. the reason we ask this is we don't control the property where the bridge would have to be built on we don't know the timing of it it could be 15, 20 years down the road we don't know we do have the possibility We do have the possibility right here to put an entrance drive in and put a bridge across that that could serve the rear property. It would be a private bridge, private access easement. But should the developer think that's feasible, he could build that bridge. And if the bridge for Old Rosebud extended comes sooner, then we would connect that way. But we just want to leave our options open. And so I guess what I'm asking is that we put the decision off until the time we turn in a final development plan for that rear property. Okay. Just a minute. I'm just getting at it. So what you're recommending is that we resolve access to rear development at the time of the final development plan. Is that what you're? Yes, sir. Our future or final development plan? Well, for a future development plan for the rear property. If I may. Okay, yeah. Because this is a final development plan. A revised note, and to give you a little history, you all may recall, the extension of old Rosebud has been on our comp plan since Tuscany was originally approved, and we are very concerned of getting that extension someday, and it will lead to Liberty Road. It's a collector street and something we've been concerned about. In fairness to the applicant, they don't control most of that and when that will happen. They are agreeing to provide a right-of-way reservation to help with that alignment. So staff, I think, would be agreeable to stating that the development of that rear portion of the property that we're discussing would be subject to an amended final development plan. So just to make it very clear, they have to come back with an amended plan if they want to develop that portion of the property. And then we would, again, discuss the crossing and those issues involved with that. And hopefully, maybe old Rosebud will be built by then. Okay. Mr. Martin, let me get clarity on it. What do you think that 16 should be revamped to say what? I can't – I'd like to be able to walk up and see the – no development of that parcel, however we identify it, until such time as an amended final development plan has been approved and certified. I've lost track of how many meetings we've had. Matt's been to some of them to discuss that little piece back there and the access and the challenges. We've had several sit-downs over the years. So no development of that property until an amended development plan is presented? It has been approved and certified, yes, sir. Okay, I'm confused now. Approved and what? Is it certified or is it approved? Which one is it? Certified. Approved and certified. Okay. You all are comfortable with that. Mr. Carter, you all are comfortable with that. Any other discussion? Yes, sir. Mr. I guess Tom, Not muddy water since everybody's okay with this. I'm just curious. Put the map back up if you could. They planned? Yeah. What we're talking about is getting access to that area in green? Yes, sir. The dark green. And old Rosebud at some point in time is going to go down beside it? Yes, sir. But you want a second access? You would like a second access? Well, there will be right of way if it's built as intended and they'll have frontage and they would have access then from Old Rosebud. But granted, their concern that when that will happen is a legitimate concern. There's considerable acreage on the other side of that extension. So we believe that the Tuscanee developer does have an interest in extending. Access would just allow them to do the timing on when to go across? Yes. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Wade, would you put your modification back up on the screen? I think it said an amended final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission and certified. Okay. okay I had it amended final development plan is approved and certified by the planning Commission is that okay okay well we any anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular plan okay anyone on the Commission if not then we're ready for a motion or additional discussion thinking there'd be a motion at this time. Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chair. I'm going to move for approval of plan MJDP 18-24 with the 15 noted conditions by staff, changing number 16 to no development of area across floodplain until such time that an amended final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission and certified. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Will Berkley, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we approve PLN-MJDP 18-24 Hamburg Place Community Phase 2 with the 15 conditions identified by staff, with 16 being changed to say that no development across the floodplain until an amended final development plan is approved and certified by the Planning Commission. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, we are moving to page 7 of your agenda. Item L, this is a major development plan, 18-25, Riddell Plaza, Lot 3. And this is property located on South Broadway. at the intersection as you can see with Simpson Avenue and South Broadway the Zaxby's is across the street along with the Marathon Station there's an AT&T store I believe to the west and of course the shopping center and Buffalo Wild Wings and Sir Pizza are all across Simpson from this from this particular proposed development now you'll have seen several proposals on this site Originally, with the zone change, I believe there was a convenience store with gas pumps, you may recall. Then subsequently, another development came in that had a large retail and a restaurant associated with it. That was actually by a different designer on the property. Now, we see this reiteration of this particular plan. They're proposing a fast food restaurant that you can see up in the right-hand corner from my perspective. on the plan that is 2500 square feet it's got a dual drive-through lanes one is a bypass lane you can see they have a considerable amount of stacking this is a revised plan and they move some of the parking there that you can see beside the building and the initial issues on this plan was the uh are several one was meeting vehicle use area screening this revised plan has demonstrated their ability to do that. That's basically a five-foot landscaping strip around the parking lot and the drive aisles. The building in the rear is an 8,000 square foot retail building with no known user. According to the applicant, they do have a user for the fast food restaurant. the two issues that are of paramount importance in staff's estimation is one number 10 where it's resolved compliance with the b1 setback requirements this plan does not meet the b1 setback requirements and that's been an issue on other b1 plans as you all are well aware because that's that bill too of 10 to 20 and it impacts parking and circulation particularly for a lot of developments and in this one this is a significant impact if they were not and again they have to go the board of adjustment if the board of adjustment does not approve that variance which is as again for either 10 or back to 20 or anywhere in between this plan will change dramatically it will impact the circulation it will impact the parking it could then conceivably impact the access i mean that it i do not i mean i want to stress the importance of the board of adjustments action on this property and how necessary it is now they have filed they have filed with the board of adjustments so they are pursuing that variance to that B1 setback. Now, as always, and you all are well aware, we talk about access, and particularly in an area such as South Broadway, where historically there's been a lot of bad access and there's bad spacing, and we always have a concern about that. Across the street, we worked with the applicant, and I believe with Matt and his firm, and we reduced one of the access easements over there, and we made it better. Now, this plan has addressed one of staff's big concerns on previous plans, and that was the Simpson Avenue access. There was access right up almost in the intersection on previous plans that existed from time immemorial on to Simpson, which was of big concern to staff because it was so poorly located. They've removed that, and that is certainly an improvement. The frontage on South Broadway was kind of wide open with several access points, so they have removed those. And we'd like to credit them with their attempts to make the access better. We still have a concern, and we just wanted to discuss it, about a full access point to South Broadway. We understand their desire for it. But you can see with the circulation that they have an exit only right there very close to that intersection, that full access point. Again, that would be traffic that would be exiting the fast food restaurant only. So that will minimize some of the conflict. But as always, we are very concerned about left-turn movements and that kind of access that presents a problem for the traveling public. And our preference would be that there be no access to South Broadway. That's the safest solution to this particular problem. We think a compromise solution would be a write-in only, and we've utilized those in a couple of instances just to help reduce left-hand turn conflict. And granted, we all know there's no design cure for bad judgment, and we're going to have that. We just like to minimize it when we can. So that's the purpose of the discussion that we brought before you today, and I wanted you to understand staff's concern along with traffic engineering's concern. That access point remained on the previous plan. We did not ask you to remove it on the previous plan that you approved. Part of that had to do with the use on that plan. There was a restaurant with a drive-thru and a retail with no stated user and a combined building. That's generally not a fast food restaurant. You all are well aware of fast food, and there's a lot of fast food up and down that strip of South Broadway. It generates an awful lot of traffic. Generally, and at the same time, which is why your staff, along with traffic engineering, has concerns about these access points. So we just wanted to put that out there and have a discussion with you today. And again, our preference would be that there be no access to South Broadway. And again, if there is access to South Broadway, to try to limit left turns and reduce that conflict. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Scherer. Tom, clarify the accesses on Simpson Avenue for us because we're looking at a map here, and this plan is showing more than what yours is. No, it's good. What? Oh, get those little jobbers. Look at there. There's access right here. Correct. on Simpson and it's lined up with shopping center full access are full access full access oh yes full access no kind of heroes yeah one of the earlier issues was just to discuss circulation they had more to do with the setback and those conflicts along with the BUA in this area okay the only reason I'm asking for clarification what I'm looking at on the screen here just to the right corner of where the dumpster is is another outbound arrow that is the pass-through line no it's to the right of where the dumpster is yeah I think that's a graphic okay all right full accesses and yeah okay I'm just clarification yeah oh excellent either I think we met and I think talked about that that's just a graphic yeah earlier he had a dumpster sitting in the middle of this building again that's what this technology does for you you move around no you know there is an extra error there that that's not on that I understand yeah but no there is no access to Simpson anywhere okay just to access Like I said, just clarification. Okay. Any other questions or comments to Mr. Martin? Okay. Applicant. Thank you. Again, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. we're in agreement with the conditions on number 10 yesterday we did file a variance board of adjustment and it'll be heard i believe may 14th we feel we have good justification as the buildings on either side of us are actually further back than the building we're proposing I brought some can I put an overhead slide up This slide is just to illustrate. Currently, there's three entrances here, so all three of these are to be removed. Probably in total, that's over 100 feet of entrances that are going to be coming off two on South Broadway and one on Simpson Avenue. What this plan is, is last July, this plan was approved by this body. And you can see here we had a full entrance onto South Broadway, the one in question. Full entrance here Full entrance here onto Simpson Lane And then a full entrance here And what we're proposing Is this full access here We're going to make it only An exit So there's no incoming traffic Can turn in here They can only exit This entrance here We've basically moved up And lined it up with the access road across Simpson Lane. So we feel like we've made a major improvement there. And then we still have this. We ran some trip generation numbers from the ITE manual. and what we came up with was a plan that's currently approved and I will say it's not certified but it is approved it had two users shown on the plans it listed them both as a restaurant one of the restaurants was LaRosa's Pizza and the other was unknown with the drive-through these are the a.m. and p.m. trips generated here for what's currently approved what we're proposing is a restaurant it's a Popeye's restaurant and a retail building in the back and Then based on ITE's Trip generation rates. These are the numbers For the a.m. and p.m. Peak down here. I've calculated This is actually less in every case 17 to 39 percent Than what's currently approved so we would be reducing the traffic Considerably even though it is a fast food. It's going to be less overall traffic. So we feel like We're reducing the traffic from what's approved. We've got better circulation We're getting one of their entrances Away from the intersection and you know, we're making it one of the access is an exit only not a full So we feel like it's vastly improved from What's currently approved And I believe that's all. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Barroa. Yeah, can you, well, you don't need to put it back up there. The access point to South Broadway, I'm glad to see you've made the changes that will alleviate at some of the concerns by the proximity on the first since an avenue entrance. I'd like to eliminate the left turn onto South Broadway. Can you stomach and make it work with your client to have a, it's going to be exit only, will it be a right exit only? Well, I mean, it'll be very difficult. That's got a, it's got a turn lane down South Broadway. It would be very difficult to control it as a right in, right out. I thought you said it was only going to be an exit. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you talking about on to South Broadway or on to our? Yeah, I'm talking about South Broadway. You said that was going to be an exit? No. Or the other one? This right here is exit only. This will be a full in and out. So my concern is left turn on South Broadway at that point is going to be troublesome at best. It's going to tie up traffic, stack it up behind there, trying to turn left, and visibility when you have two lanes of traffic is dangerous in my opinion. So I'd like to see that to be a right exit only. If it's right in, then right out. But the left turn, I think, is problematic. i don't believe our the applicant would i mean he needs it a full access for the users he's got for the for the truck traffic things like that i believe it's and i don't believe we can control it as a write in write out it's just we could we could sign it but people are still going to turn So, I mean, I don't know. I don't know how we would do that. And I do understand your concerns. I just, it's been this way for as long as I've lived here. Okay. The cavalry is on its way. hopefully today's a good day and i clear it up don't muddy it um so traffic has the same concerns that you have with that left out i mean we all know south broadway is two lanes in each direction and it has the two-way left turn lane in the middle um my concern with trying to restrict the right you know restrict it to a right in right out is without the median control they just don't work And so then it kind of almost takes a situation where a car is there and they know during peak times it's going to take a while to get out. But the vehicles on South Broadway expect this left movement out of the site. When we put the right in, right out, and people don't control it, when they don't obey it, then that causes me concern for my travelers on Broadway. because then when they make that left movement out that they weren't supposed to make, they're not expecting it. If it was as easy as to say do the right in, right out, everybody would obey it, that would be my recommendation. In this case, it's honestly that cheat movement makes it more concerning for me than just having the full access. I don't think you hear that from me very often. You know, all those accesses along there are full accesses. Truthfully, from a traffic standpoint, I don't like any of them. I don't like the left movement out of the Zaxby's or the cookout up the road. But when we reviewed this plan, they are reducing the number of access points to the site. you know my only solution would be either give them the full access or no access at all i wouldn't want to try to and you can't media and control it because then you're restricting movements from the opposite side of the street i will say south broadway is a state roadway and we have been in correspondence with the engineer at the state and she has seen this plan. They don't actually review plans until they're ready to apply for our encroachment permit, but they have seen it and kind of had the same feelings that Tom and I have expressed. You know, the left movement, it's not a fun movement to make during those two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. Um, but other times of the day, I think they're making the situation better. Miss Plumlee. Thank you. I have a question. Casey, sometimes that we have used for fast foods, but pork chop. Is that totally out of the question here? I think it is because ultimately in this situation, they're going to, you know, we've seen them even when they get stuck on top of the pork chop. So now, you know, what we did to try to improve it, unfortunately, you know, I don't like to design for human nature, but in this particular situation, I can pretty much guarantee they're going to make that left, even if we put the pork chop, without the meat in control. and that's not an option because of the restrictions we'd be placing on the other side of the street. Any other questions? Mr. Berkley, I'm sorry. I know we did the Zaxby's plan there, I don't know, a year or two ago, And I believe on that one, we approved full access at the south end of the site, maybe. How does that one differ than this? So they kind of did the same improvements. The existing site on the Zaxby's site, I don't remember the number of entrances to start with. Those are two existing entrances, and we requested the applicant work with the adjacent gas station, and they consolidated into one entrance and then lost the entrance. So that Zaxby's does have a full access. kind of in that same thought process they were reduced when they came in for the development plan process. Any other questions? Okay, let me ask a couple questions myself here. It says here that the staff approves this with a discussion access to South Broadway. Well, we've discussed it. I think that we just wanted to let the commission know our concerns and let you all hear the discussion and make that decision. Well, the question I have is that when Mr. Martin was speaking, he was saying that the staff's recommendation would be no access, the preference would be no access or no access to South Broadway. That would be your first option. The second thing you said would be a kind of, as you use the term, compromise, write-in only. Now, I guess my question is, is that something you all can live with, or is that a collective recommendation or individual opinions? I was going to say, not speaking for the applicant, but from a staff standpoint, I think the write-in is a situation that we could design for to accommodate, not even given that option for someone to exit there, that is a design situation we could feel comfortable with. Okay. Mr. Martin? I just wanted to clarify, your subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan with those discussion items. So staff reviewed the revised plan, which was one of the reasons we left that discussion item for you today. Oh, okay. mr carter you have any other final thoughts about it no we just we request that you approve full access we feel it's important for this development and just we ask for your approval okay uh did okay miss miss plumley I have a question about the underwater detention, underground detention. Are you going to do two, I see, on here? Yes, ma'am. It will be a combined detention and water quality as well, both. So each lot will have their own basin. okay mr holland's thank you mr uh matt you know my question goes back to the south broadway access uh as far as me personally i'm i'm good with the right in right out as i can understand where casey's coming from she said they may get stuck on the on the median if they try and go over the pork chop well they're not going to as far as i'm concerned they're not going to be making a left-hand turn if they get stuck but uh where you know i know you're wanting a full access where where are you all if you don't get it well from what i understand for the popeyes has looked at this from how their trucks are going to enter the site and they say they have got to come in that entrance so enter and and they won't probably exit that way but they'll enter that way and they need to be able to come from both directions so um so i you know that's and i don't want to redesign your plan but let me ask you this if by chance you've got you've got coming out around the drive-through you've got that right that exit only right right there just inside the full access what if you did away with that with that you know to me that would force people back into the middle of the property and they are more likely to go out Simpson Avenue then Well, I would have to confer with the owners on that, but I don't believe they're interested. This is basically their prototype layout that we're following, and I think they're going to want to stick to this. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Martin, yes, sir. A little bit of clarification in answer to Mr. Berkley about the exact speech, because that, again, bad access and issues had to be dealt with. Staff initially recommended that two of those three access points go away and that they share one. And the compromise was because of the gas station really needed that one for the trucks to maneuver. That was very problematical for staff, but it stayed. And then Zaxby's did get a full access point, and that was the compromise. We actually recommended that two of the three go away. And they have cross-access. That was the other thing that helped staff with that compromise is that they can move back and forth between those two properties. And, again, you all are well aware of the concerns along South Broadway and the issues that that street has. So that is why we're discussing it with you today. Okay. Any other comments from the commission? Any other questions for either the applicant or the staff? Anyone in the audience like to address this particular issue? Okay, great. Now, let me ask you this. What we have here is that the staff is recommending approval, but it says discuss access to South Broadway. We've discussed it, but we haven't resolved anything. Now, Mr. Carter, if we simply said strike the word discuss and resolve in there, does that give you a little latitude to go back and talk to your client? Okay. Okay, so I'm just making that as a general recommendation to get us moving, to simply strike out the word discuss and simply put in the word resolve, access to South Broadway. Now, the three options that we are having here, I mean, again, I'm listening to what the staff is saying. One option is the preferred option is no turn at all. The second would be right in only. And then we heard a commission member say right in, right out only. So those are the three I've heard. the two from the staff write in only as the compromise with the preference being no access period. Is that clear? Okay. So, Mr. Carter, when you talk with your applicant, you'll know what we're thinking about. Any other questions from the body? Yes, sir, Mike. This property next door says existing retail building. Does that come in that street? well is it the property to the okay yeah there's a i believe it is a 2700 does he have access off that little right here he's got access well it's off the screen but his access is in the front okay he can't get on your new road there no there's no connection okay is there a stoplight up there on simpson no okay up here no and then then are there going to be two lots or are there one lot two lots so i mean i think you're forcing some of the traffic sorry some of the traffic onto another person's lot if you if they force them all to go out and go around simpson that's yes that's i mean that's i think that's problematic for an owner okay okay but i think we've i think we've got a kind of a resolution on the table that this is something they'll have to work on and resolve and we'll get back with uh i'm ready to get if there's no additional discussion we're ready for a motion then yes sir mr owens thank you mr chair and thank you for trying to help resolve this with with your suggestion if i understood matt right right he's okay with resolve at this time okay um you know i stated where i would like to see but i've got to say as well i do agree that you know one access out onto uh south broadway much better than what there was and that there were two and i think simpsons improved as well so uh with that i'm going to move uh for approval of plan mjdp 18-25 reddell plaza lot three with the revised 11 conditions changing number 11 to resolve access to south broadway Okay, it's been moved Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLNMJDP 18-25. Is it Rydell or Riddell? Rydell Plaza, Lot 3, Parker Property, with the 11 conditions provided by staff changing number 11 to resolve access to South Broadway. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just a second. She didn't look up here. It tells you what the vote is. Yeah, I picked that up a long time ago. Who's it going to resolve it to? That's a 5,000. Well. Mr. Duncan, I think that you have any other parting words to us and for us related to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to remind the Planning Commission that we have a Planning Commission work session next Thursday, a week from today, 1.30 in the Phoenix Building, third floor, where we will continue the discussion for the comprehensive plan. Okay. Any other announcements? Marriages, births, divorces, whatever. Okay, if there's no other business to come before this body, without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.