Two shoes, goody two, goody two, goody goody two shoes Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Subtle, genuine, don't follow There must be something inside We don't follow fashion, that'd be a joke You know we're gonna set, can't set down So everyone can take note, take note When are you kneeling? Crowd words that you need Opening the eyeballs, eyeballs Pretending that you're outgreen, outgreen Goody-toot, goody-toot, goody-goody-tooshoes Goody-toot, goody-goody-tooshoes Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Subtle innuendo swallow Must be something inside No one's gonna tell me What's wrong with my sight Until me it will slip with My bad, I'm on the big bad, big bad This kind of helps tell you You're racing with cigar Two weeks ago you're an all-time legend I think the game's a go-to much too far If the world's so spoken I can't stop you, though Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call the Urban County Planning Commission subdivision and zoning items public hearing to order. I would like to ask the indulgence of my colleagues here to shift an agenda item. If you note on page 8 of that, it said that we were going to have a resolution for former planning commission members, so we'd like to take that out of order if it's agreeable and without objection we will honor our departing commission members at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, I also ask you all to join me down in front. As you know, we've lost a lot of institutional memory here. Of course, we've got some new people coming on. Of course, we're going to welcome them with open arms. But it's, of course, with some sadness that we say good day and goodbye to a couple of our more experienced commission members. The first that we would like to recognize is Ms. Carolyn Richardson. Would you join Ms. Richardson? Thank you. And we do have a resolution and it starts off saying, whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Ms. Carolyn Richardson from the Planning Commission. And whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Richardson for her valuable service to this commission from June 19, 2014 until June 30, 2018, having served on the commission's zoning committee for her entire term and whereas Ms. Richardson has been influential in the formation and adoption of the goals and objectives of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and whereas Ms. Richardson has also been influential in the formation of the Armstrong Mill West, the Cardinal Valley and the Winburn Small Area Plans, the Oxford Circle Redevelopment Feasibility Study, the Fayette County Housing Demand Study, the 2017 update to the Rural Land Management Plan, and multiple text amendments to the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, most notably the Recreation and Tourism Text Amendment. and whereas Ms. Richardson has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Lexington, Fayette County, as reflected in her decision regarding land use and development, and whereas the members of this commission and the staff feel that the service and guidance contributed by Ms. Richardson will be greatly missed by this body. Now, therefore, be it resolved, we the members of the commission along with the staff do hereby express our gratitude to Ms. Richardson for her service to this commission and to the citizens of Lexington Fayette County and we, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission, and its staff do hereby wish for Ms. Richardson much happiness and continued success and ask that she continue to give valuable guidance to members of this commission and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Richardson and also spread upon the minute book of this body. Ms. Richardson. Thank you. Well, we'll wait until she can sit down and then we'll get them back up together at the very end. I know we were just talking about whether we're going to give Mr. Cravens his due and his public due and then we'll move from there. One of the other things I have to say that Carolyn, on a personal note, has been very helpful, as has Mike in terms of giving me personal guidance and advice. And so, Carol, I want to say personally I'm going to miss you, and thank you very, very much. By the way, you've done a lot of work, but it didn't indicate that she had already been on the commission one other time before. So just the four years that she was here, she added significantly and invaluable service to the community. Plus that she joined the commission when she was 13. Our next departing commission member is K. Michael Cravens. His resolution reads, whereas we the members of the Lexington Fiat Urban County Planning Commission and staff acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Mr. Michael Cravens from the Planning Commission. and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Cravens for his valuable service to this commission from June 22, 2006 until June 30, 2018. Having served on the commission's subdivision committee from June 2006 until August 2011, where he transferred to the zoning committee and remaining on that committee for the remainder of his tenure on the commission. having served as both parliamentarian and vice chair by unanimous election of his peers as well as chair of the commission and having served as the Lexington Home Builders member of the Landscape Review Committee. And whereas Mr. Cravens has been influential in the formation of several small area plans and studies, notably the Armstrong Mill West Small Area Plan, the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, and the Winburn Small Area Plan, the Red Mile Development Plan, the Oxford Circle Redevelopment Feasibility Study, and the Fiat Housing Demand Study, the Green Space Plan, and the 2017 update of the Rural Land Management Plan, multiple text amendments to the zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations, most notably the Recreation and Tourism Text Amendment, and the formation and adoption of both the 2007 and 2013 comprehensive plans, and the goals and objectives of the 2018 plan. And whereas Mr. Cravens has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County as reflected in his decisions regarding land use and development, and whereas the members of this commission and the staff feel that the service and guidance contributed by Mr. Cravens will be greatly missed by this body. Now, therefore, be it resolved, we the members of the commission and staff, to hereby express our gratitude to Mr. Cravens for his service to this commission and to the citizens of Lexington Fayette County, and we, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, do hereby wish for Mr. Cravens much happiness and continued success and ask that he continue to provide valuable guidance and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Cravens and also spread upon the minute book of this body. Mr. Cravens. Thank you. Thank you. Testing. I know it is. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we wanted to give our recipients an opportunity to give their acknowledgement for the awards that were given. Let me just say one thing. Not too long ago, I was talking to Mike, and he had indicated to me that he, in his 12 years of service, I think had attended over 600 meetings as such. So when we talk about time and time commitment, I translated that in hours and figured that under just a conservative estimate, it's about 2,000 hours of time that this gentleman has given and equally so for Carolyn Richardson. So we thank you both for the information and for the valuable guidance that you've given. Ms. Richardson. Thanks, Bill. You know, it's been a real privilege to serve for eight years on the council, on the commission. And I think that I would first of all like to say thank you to all the staff who've been wonderful in providing all kinds of information, a lot of times more than I wanted. But nevertheless, in a very professional and very thorough manner. And that's important when you come down here to have these meetings, to be informed. And I thank all of you. You've consistently done that. And also I'd like to thank my fellow members. I've developed great friendships and we've had a lot of fun. And while we don't always agree, when we leave here, we're all on a friendly term. And that is really important, that we can come in here and be disagreeable somewhat and still leave and be agreeable. and it's really important, I think, for people to understand that what this commission does is really important. It's the future of Lexington, and I'm glad to have had the opportunity to do just a teeny little small piece of that future. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to say it's been an honor to serve on the commission. Being in the business, building business, our family started in 1923 building houses here in Lexington. And then my father became, he's a general contractor and built many churches and shopping centers and all sorts of buildings and trained me. and then my brother Lynn Cravens is an architect for 40 years in this town and my son is in the business remodeling and my wife Gail sells real estate for us, Cravens Realty, and my daughter. And so we're all involved in it and I felt like some way this was an honor for us to be able to be on the government side of things for a little while anyway. And I'd like to thank the staff, too, for their administrative work. Everything was always on time, and the agendas are all up there for you to make your decisions. And Tracy does a good job with her presentations. And Tom Martin, the crowd favorite, does a good job with his. And Jim Duncan, the only cop plan I ever liked was the one he wrote in 2013. and Cheryl does a good job and Donna and Denise I'm not here and Stephanie but they take the minutes and count the votes and then all the technical people up sitting right up there in the back that sit through all these meetings just for maybe no questions or one question and they're on call and they have to pay attention maybe all the time but anyway I'd like to thank everybody and my fellow commissioners I sat beside Mike Owens for like what, four or five years and he's a Bryan Station defender like I am and Karen and Carolyn and Healy and all of you Tracy with the law I'd like to thank everybody it's been a pleasant 12 years so thank you very much Thank you These people certainly have given a lot of their time and energy, and hopefully you have driven around Lexington and have seen some of the results of the decisions that we collectively made in which you all played a very valuable part. And for those results that have not come back yet, we know that you all voted and you've supported in what I call fairness and honesty, and you brought that integrity to the council. And so we're going to miss you. We thank you. And remember, lunch is on me next Tuesday. Okay, thanks again, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. And now I have a complaint that I would like to, I'm just kidding. Okay, the approval of the minutes, I think you have several sets. I hope you've had a chance to review them. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move approval of June 28, July 12, July 26, and August 9 minutes. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Mundy that we approve the minutes of June 28, July 12, July 26, and August 19, All in 2018. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Any postponements in our withdrawals? Okay. As you note that this week we've got kind of a double agenda because we didn't have a quorum at the September the 9th meeting so we'll be covering the items initially that were a part of the September the 9th agenda. With that I'll call on Ms. Wade to give us an idea if we have anything on the consent agenda that we can manage. Thank you Mr. Wilson. We do have a number of items that appear on the consent agenda today and that is at your seats and then I will make a one note about that as we move through the first consent agenda item appears on page three of your regular agenda it's item a it is a development plan pln mjdp 18-55 this is piper development also known as the pain treatment center of the bluegrass and it's an amended development plan for 280 pasadena drive the next item also appears on page three it is item b pln mjdp 18-56 and that's for hillemeyer east amended that property is located at 7 45 and 803 greendale road and i would note it does appear on your consent agenda today but we did have a revised plan come in and so the staff did revised conditions as well so if we need to pull it we can and address the conditions but at this point it can be approved on the consent agenda as well i just want to clarify the fact that you have two sheets of paper that list that the next item appears on page four and it's item d also a development plan pln mjdp 18-59 for hamburg place office park and this is for lot 12c and it's an an amended development plan. Property is located at 1770 Vendor Way. We have two items that were re-approvals, then they were recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. The first one appears on page four. It is item E at the very bottom of page four. It's DP 2015-90 Marathon Oil Company, also known as Speedway America, Super America LLC, and that's an amended development plan for property located at 140 mercer road and then lastly on page five item f pln mjdp 17-34 and that is for newtown springs and it's track two of that property located at 564 asbury lane at this point we'll ask if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to have any of of these items pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion or if anyone on the commission would like to have any of these discussed today. Seeing none. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wade. You're welcome. We'll prepare to receive a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, thank you. I move that we accept the consent agenda as has been presented by staff, and that would include PLN MJDP 18-56 Hillenmayer East with the new conditions set forth. I have a second by Mr. Foss. It's been moved by Ms. Karen Mundy. Seconded by Mr. Larry Foster that we accept the consent agenda as approved by staff with the notification that on PLN 18-56, there are new conditions and those have been established and explained to us, and that would also be a part of the reflected minutes. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, the motion is approved, so the consent agenda is taken care of. I think now we move back to page one. I think you all need to establish and set up for that one. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I work for Lexmark, so I'm going to have to recuse myself from item number one. Yes, sir. Thank you for that. We'll send someone for you when we finish with that particular item. So we're back on page one now. The first development plan will be the Lexmark International PLN 18-20. Good afternoon. First item is MJSUB 1820 Lexmark International Amazon. The property here is located, this is the Lexmark property off the north side of town, New Circle Road and New Town Pike. New Circle, New Town. We have the Legacy Trail. You can see this line coming up through here that goes across, coming up from Loudon Mountain Avenue and then going up and going across New Circle Road to go through to the north side. Right now, Amazon is coming in, and they're asking for this property to be subdivided so that they can create a lot. They're wanting to put on a structure on this, it's outlined in purple, a structure on the property and for their distribution. They have a new plan for how they want to have a quicker distribution of products. With that, the subdivision committee approved this plan with the following conditions. We had several just typical sign-offs from engineering and traffic that they have reviewed on this plan for a lot of different issues. Then for cleanup, we had several cleanup conditions. We talked about the utilities that are already located on this property that they needed to connect to. We wanted to know who was going to be doing the maintenance for the access easement that will lead them from Newtown Pike into the property. There it is. There's the access easement that they are planning to use to go on the property. I'm having a problem with my phone. With this property. Thank you. Okay, there's the proposed access easement. This was just created when we were doing some development to the south of this property that Lexmark had other development plans earlier. This property also had some floodplain on the north side of it that we wanted to make sure that they are noted. As we said, that there's a legacy trail that follows through, coming through the edge of the property running parallel with Newtown Pike and then crosses over New Circle Road. We want to make sure that there's information showing how that will be reviewed to look at so that there's not a problem with the traffic coming out of this distribution center. they have requested a waiver for the improvements to be put on the property and I'm going to allow Tom to explain that waiver if you all have any other comments or questions any other questions for Ms. Gallup yes Mr. Owens thank you Mr. Chair Ms. Gallup are they purchasing the plan is to purchase At this time, this is a lease. At this time, it's a lease for, they said, 18 to 36 months. This is just a new procedure they're trying for their distribution. That requires it to be subdivided or planted? We gave them options of the subdivision from the property to create the lot, or they would have to have done a development plan because there's multiple buildings on one lot. if they were to come in with just putting the building on. And they chose the option to do a subdivision flat to create the individual lot. Any reason why they chose that? Is the development plan process more lengthy or what? I believe they would have had to do a lot more work as trying to find Lexmark of creating that whole development plan because at this current time, I don't believe we have a development plan on the whole property showing all the buildings that are left. And so to create this, they were only to survey the boundaries of the property and then show where they're creating this lot. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Gollum? Okay, Mr. Martin. Crowd favorite. I say crowd favorite as Mr. Craven referred to you as. I am my mother's favorite child. How many children does she have? Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, the waiver that is associated with this property, if you take a look at the plat that is being proposed. You can see some of the interesting aspects of this is that it's a floater. It is completely surrounded by the parent track. It is being created in a parking area on the Lexmark property. There is the Legacy Trail easement in this area. Here is the access easement that will serve the property in question. It comes off of Freight Boulevard, which serves the rest of the formerly Lexmark, the Setzer property, and all that industrial development in that area. And, Mr. Owens, your question is very relevant to the situation that Amazon is proposing a modular – what's the word I want? Pardon me. Modular delivery station. a 12,000 square foot warehouse facility on this property it is a temporary structure and all the ancillary services the offices the bathrooms for the workers are all temporary they're going to be portable buildings we did staff met with them and did give them a choice and said well you need a development plan on this property or you subdivide it and you can have one principal structure on a lot without a development plan and this is a somewhat expedited process they still have to answer certain questions and deal with standards related to the building code and the health code and that sort of thing they they have to do that and they will do that the key staff believes in in talking with them is the temporary nature of the property and the waivers that they're requesting are to the frontage. And although I-1 does not have a set frontage requirement, your subdivision regulations require frontage, primarily for purposes of access, which is why you also see these types of larger developments, both commercial and industrial, and apartments utilize access easements. That is not actually unusual in this type of development. The other request, and this was very concerning and somewhat problematic for staff, is the waiver on the sanitary sewers. And this, frankly, is unprecedented. We've never been asked this, nor have we ever granted it in this sense. The only sanitary sewer waivers that you have ever been asked or recommended to approve is a timing waiver in essence in that they were building the sanitary sewer as they were developing the lot and certainly a timing issue is one that that staff recognizes and has recommended approval because it was being provided in this particular case there will be no sanitary sewer but there will be, if you should approve this, a free-standing transferable lot. And that, again, this is really quite unprecedented, and staff gave this a lot of thought and was concerned about that. And we talked with various entities and our coworkers within the government, and we determined that because of the temporary nature of the structure, as well as the fact that the portable classrooms with the portable sanitary facilities are actually, interesting enough, fall under state jurisdiction. So we'll have a state level of approval and monitoring of that situation governing the sanitary facilities on the property. So with that, in evaluating this waiver request, your staff is recommending approval of the waiver to the frontage requirement. And with that, you'll find an access easement finding as well. Staff does support the fact that an access easement in this case is certainly appropriate to serve as access to the property. It is a developed property, as you all are well aware. It's a parking lot, and there is a freight boulevard that is fully constructed. So with that, we are recommending approval of that waiver, and we are approving the sanitary sewer waiver as well. The reasons that the applicant would be happy, I'm sure, to elaborate on is an important need for speed. You know, Amazon has certain standards of delivery, and they are striving to meet those standards, and they need this facility to maintain that level of service. That is a hardship. It's not one particularly imposed by the site itself, but they haven't requested this waiver for a hardship. But that is the reason that it would be a hardship. And then the other hardship staff would concede is that creating a lot in this location has certain challenges, and those challenges in the sanitary sewer situation are these. In order to serve this lot, it is very likely in our conversations with our engineering folks, and it's a four-and-a-half-acre site, by the way, will need a pump station and possibly a boring under Newtown Pike. That's very, very expensive work, and it requires a very well-designed sewer system. And it was for that reason we did not recommend a bond, because without a design and a firm cost estimate, there can be no bond. and we actually discussed that at length. Engineering expressed very, very legitimate concerns with posting a bond. Their fear was that if you just pull some figure out of the hat and in the future the city had to call that bond, conceivably it wouldn't cover the cost and then we would be subsidizing, the public would be subsidizing private sewer service in essence. So we deemed that to be not a wise direction. So what we are recommending in your waiver report is that they denote clearly on the plat that there be no future use of the lot until a final development plan has been approved by the Planning Commission and certified. So what that means is we're granting that they need this for temporary use, but once they vacate the premises, there shall be no use allowed until a final development plan has been certified for that lot. And that will ensure the appropriate facilities get built for any other use, including sewer, drainage facilities, anything that would be required. Secondly, we would like for them to denote on the plat that all temporary improvements shall be removed from the lot at such time said facilities are no longer utilized by Amazon, one of its subsidiaries, or an Amazon contractor. I mean, their stated purpose is to use this facility to deliver their packages, however that may be, whether it's Amazon or a contractor or whoever is utilizing the facility. Well, we want to make it very clear that at such time Amazon is no longer using this facility, we want everything removed from the lot. And with that, we would also like to note it on the plat that this lot is not currently served by a public or a private sanitary sewer system. We want that clearly denoted, and that would be for any potential future buyer or user of this property, so they'd be aware that there's no sewer facility available. With that, staff is recommending approval of the waivers. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this case, what is the definition of temporary? In their case, they intend to use the facility for 18 to 36 months. The structure itself is a temporary structure, as are the portable classrooms. What if it goes beyond that period? What if it goes 48, 60? They will have approval to utilize this lot at this time, and the waiver will stand. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Barclay. Tom, you referred to Freight Boulevard, I think? Yes, sir. That the easement is on Freight Boulevard? Freight Boulevard is a private access easement now, and they're going to be allowed to use it, and the easement leaves Freight Boulevard, crosses the Lexmark property. Okay, so that entrance there is considered Freight Boulevard? Yes, part of it. I thought that was further south. Yeah. the main freight boulevard but okay mr. Owens thank you mr. chair um tom listening you know i'm i have no problem with what is being proposed as far as use i can see the need for the speed and so forth hardship was mentioned my concern is hardship after the fact after this has ceased and what happens if Amazon just walks away we've got a track of land that I see not being sellable and it could possibly affect the other property around it how do we get you know what kind of hardship are we creating there how we're gonna get out of that again staffs recommending that should they walk away once they leave no longer using this property that everything be removed from the property i understand that but we've created a lot that doesn't have sewer and that doesn't you know that might say to somebody no i don't want to do that and it may be a hardship to the property surrounding it lexmark surround is the surrounding property i understand but the sell of it you know we've got four and a half acres sitting sitting there that's it yes sir i've staff shares your concerns about this is an unprecedented waiver however we do feel that the development plan process when a new user would have to go through the development process and would be required then to provide all those services including the sanitary sewer okay thank you miss monday Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, my question goes back to your comment saying this is a freestanding transferable lot. Yes, ma'am. It's a lease. It will be. But it's a lease. We're creating a lot that they are leasing. But when that lease ends, this lot is still there as a freestanding transferable lot. Yes, ma'am. under your land subdivision regulations, if you approve this subdivision and this waiver request, it is a lot. We are creating a legal lot. So is that covered in the lease agreement, or have you had opportunity? Oh, we're not privy to the lease agreement. I'm sure they'll be happy to elaborate on their circumstances for you. Okay. Well, I see the need for it. I don't have a problem with that. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it being a freestanding transferable lot when it's a lease. That's what I'm trying. Okay. Well, they're, in essence, leasing the lot, I'm sure. Yeah. Again, staff's not aware of the exact wording of the lease. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Berkley. I don't know if this would be necessary or not, but maybe it'll answer some of your all's questions. Could we require that that lot be consolidated back with the parent track at the end? We discussed that at length with our legal folks, and that would satisfy problems in the future and would remove the need for a development plan process. but we weren't aware of how we could comfortably actually legally revoke a plat without coming back to you and following KRS. And you may be aware we've done that a few times. And that's really what you're describing. And we talked about that. And there's no way to trigger a revocation. The owner has to request a revocation. As I say, this is an interesting situation that we've brought to you today. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Mark Belmont. I'm with CESO. We're representing Amazon today. and first want to thank staff for all their help through this unique situation I think everything was stated very clearly by staff and we are willing to agree to all the conditions set forth in staff's recommendations but I could answer any questions you have about the site and the property and our intent any questions? Mr. Owens. I think it should be asked. Thank you first and once again, the use and what you're proposing, I have no problem with. My hardship comes with, after the fact, having that lob sitting there, not suitable and not suitable for the person coming in later. Have you done this anywhere else or have you resolved this anywhere else more importantly? I'm trying to think if I personally have my work. I guess if I had, I'd have a great recommendation for you. I wish we could do what Mr. Berkley said and just take that back to Lexmark at the end, because that's really everyone's intent. They will always own that property. It's all contiguous around it. They own that. So, I mean, they are definitely leasing it to us and doing this subdivision with full knowledge of the fact that it isn't served by a sanitary, that it would have to go back for a final development plan in the future. So they'd be, I think they'd have to disclose that to anyone if they were to sell it. Anyone that was trying to buy it would realize they have a somewhat useless piece of property if it didn't come back in front of this board. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this particular agenda item? Okay. Then I'll pull it back to the commission. Mr. Owens. Thank you. I've got one question for the staff. Have there been any conversation with Lexmark in regards to this? Staff has only been dealing primarily with the engineers, as is our usual situation. Any other comments or questions? Okay. We'll take this in two motions. Depending on how the first one goes, we'll take the second one. Mr. Chair? Mr. Berkley? I'm going to move for approval of plan MJSUB18-20 Lexmark International Amazon, subject to the 19 conditions proposed by staff. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Perkley, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN MJSUB 18-20, Lexmark International, with the conditions, 19 conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? And secondly, I will move for approval of the findings of the petition for waiver of land subdivision regulations for the reasons cited by staff. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second. Okay, then we have a second to approve the waiver associated with PLNMJSUB 18-20 Lexmark International. And that waiver also includes findings for the appropriateness of access easement as a sole access for certain lots. That's agreeable. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, but the motion carries five to two. Thank you. We've just gone to secure Mr. Brewer, but we can set up for the second, the preliminary subdivision plan on page two. Thank you. Hello, good afternoon. We are, oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Galt, we're ready. Good afternoon. We're looking at MJ, SUB 1817, Eastland Parkway Subdivision, Track 1. This property is located off of New Circle Road in Eastland Parkway. This was the old Continental Inn property. They have a car dealership right here on the corner of Eastland and New Circle. Winchester Road runs along here. We have a set of strip shops down here that have access through the strip shops and go out this private access easement. What they're proposing today is to create these lots right here in the center. they're proposing a road to be connected to Eastland Parkway. All the lots will have access off of this proposed road. With that, we have just the typical conditions. We had a couple cleanup conditions. There's one condition that says denote maintenance responsibility for the access easement. That is that private access easement along the side here. We have a letter from Turner Development, and at this time it was a discussion as to having access, some of those lots to be able to have access off that access easement. Mr. Turner does not believe that that access easement is large enough for all this development, so therefore there won't be any access to the easement that everybody will be accessing the proposed road. We just had two discussion questions. It seems that there's two utility easements going across lots two and seven. I believe it was one of them might be vacant. Therefore, that's why they're still there because they were recorded that way. And then on the end, we have, like I told you, the strip shops that were located down here. there's a service road that comes in and stops right here at lot number three. We don't know that they will be using it as an access to get on and off the property because I believe they are going to be using the proposed road, but I will allow the applicant to answer that question. If you all have any other comments or questions. Any questions for Ms. Gaunt? Okay, applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Fred Eastridge with ECSI here representing the plan. The two sanitary sewer easements that was just mentioned do exist. They were recorded on the final record plat. The only easement that has a sanitary sewer in, unfortunately, is this one right here. It goes to the middle one at the top towards Eastland Parkway is an empty easement. It doesn't have a sanitary sewer in it, but it is recorded easement. It keeps if the owners. sees fit will have will apply for a release of that easement. And do away with it is item number 11 discussed front of road on lot 3. There's a friend wrote here that goes through and then connects back over to Winchester Road. The only people that have access to that service road would be. Lot 3 and if somebody bought 3 and 4 or 5 they would access it. and they wouldn't be used for through traffic. It would just be used for those three lots. And we're agreeable with the conditions as stated and would like to ask for approval of the plan subject to the conditions. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Anyone like to speak from the audience on this particular agenda item? Okay. I have a question for staff. I just assumed that on the 10 and 11 we can use the word resolve as opposed to discuss. Okay. I'll bring it back to the commission. Any other questions or discussion on this particular agenda item? If not, the chair is ready to entertain a motion. Ms. Plumlee Thank you Mr. Chair Move approval of PLNMJ SUV 1817 Eastland Parkway subdivision with 11 conditions changing discussed to resolve in both 10 and 11 Second Okay it's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee second by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLNMJ SUV to be 18 to 17 Eastland Parkway Subdivision Track 1C Block B Lot 2 with the 11 conditions provided by staff changing number 10 and 11 from discussed to resolve. Any other discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page two. It is a major subdivision plan and a final development plan. 18-18, the peninsula. We have revised conditions that have been distributed to you on this lovely blue paper. As you can see, here we are at the well-known peninsula development, And what this plan has done is combined all the single-family area, the area that was previously approved, along with the school site, the donut hole in this development, into one preliminary subdivision plan for all the single-family homes. And you can see, of course, the street system that is being proposed to serve the development. The apartments would be up here, the clubhouse over in this area. and again Squires Road comes in through here and will continue on up and out. And you see the internal street system. This is the townhouse area, which is also a portion of this plan. In the final level and plan, there are 30 units in this plan, and they are proposing to access Squires Road in this location. You can see from your handout that a tremendous amount of work and discussion has gone into this plan prior to bringing it to you today. And a lot of the issues and a lot of the cleanup conditions have been addressed on this plan. And there are several items that we would like to bring to your attention and point out, of course. One is, as always, we want to be sure that there's a good internal pedestrian system for the townhouse residents, and particularly to get them out to the public right away and to the trail system. Because as you all well know over many discussions, that there is a trail system along Squires Road that will eventually take people over to the park and then all the way back out. Of course, you can follow it down to Armstrong Mill Road eventually. It's part of a very important trail system in that part of our community. in conjunction with that one of your conditions is to clean up the geometry right through here and this is this is not a major issue but it's one that staff felt like they could address fairly easily just to clean up the lot lines a little bit in this area and reduce some odd geometry the same is true right here this is a very odd lot it's a very odd lot and it could be adjusted it slightly to be again it's a small adjustment and it's associated with the cemetery that was discovered on the property and one of the conditions that they have already met is they are referencing the zoning ordinance requirements on how to maintain and delineate a cemetery and this one has a study as you may recall was submitted to you prior they have studied the area There will be some additional work to fully delineate it. You may find this interesting. Your staff certainly does. It is an old cemetery and has some names that go back in our local history a considerable distance and there's a fair number of graves have been located on the cemetery. It actually makes for a very nice green space feature in the development. There have been, as you all well know, a lot of discussions about water quality and the development of the property. And this configuration accounts for detention and it accounts for requirements that they're going to have to meet adjacent to the reservoir in order to address the important water quality requirements that they have to meet as they develop this property. Now, this leads us to another discussion that we want to bring to your attention. And there's a note on the plan that addresses this now. And you've heard about the construction debris and the asbestos. And there was a preliminary study done for the school board, and there were some locations identified. The applicant's representatives, in working with the staff on how best to delineate and deal with this debris, made a very valid point that they were not yet fully aware of the exact extent of this. And they wanted to be sure that they addressed this. They have to address it correctly. They have to get the permits. It has to be removed. But they were a little reluctant to actually delineate these sites because they weren't fully confident in the information that we all currently have access to. On the other hand, as they develop the property with their infrastructure plans, with their grading plans, they will fully delineate, expose the debris, and they will remove it. And, of course, they are subject to all state and federal permits that are applicable to that. And so with that, staff agreed to a note on the plan. And what I want to draw your attention to is there's another item in your packet. and it's an improvement plan report and these are required to be submitted to you at 50 percent of development on any site you're not required to take any action and the one that you have before you today is one that is for you to consider but again no action is for hill and meyer west okay it's not for this site because it's not time they haven't started any infrastructure work. Staff just wants to make the point for you to know that you will see a report just like this, and it's going to say the peninsula on top of it. And they are going to address the infrastructure, and that will include how they've addressed the removal of that construction debris and that asbestos. It will be in this report at such time as this report is necessary to be submitted to you. So again, we just wanted to stress that, that that will be addressed and staff is comfortable utilizing that approach, as is your Division of Engineering, because we conferred very closely with them on that issue. We're fully aware of the concern, both yours and the public's concern, about that sort of thing. So with that you can see there are very few conditions left on the plan other than your standard sign-offs again i mentioned cleaning up a little bit of the geometry and then quite often as you all know we need to resolve the dumpster location in the townhouses but that's again not a major situation but is one that has to meet our government standards on on service and so with that staff is recommending approval of this subdivision plan and final development plan to you today i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have any questions for mr martin mr martin i have it's i think i have the answer to it but if this particular area it was not appropriate for a school to build on. Why is it appropriate to build homes on it? It's not a matter of appropriateness. It's a matter of cost, I believe. Okay. You're saying, in effect, it was too much for the school system to... Yes, sir, and they are bound by very different standards of addressing these types of issues in terms of bidding it out and pay scale and that sort, because they're a governmental entity. Whereas a private entity has much more flexibility in how they address this in terms of who they hire and what they pay. Now they have to meet all federal and state standards when it comes to removing this material and disposing of it. Okay. Any other comments or questions? I just wanted that on the record. Thank you. Applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. We are in agreement with the remaining conditions that the staff has proposed. In meeting with the staff, we do believe we already have kind of worked out solutions on number 12 and number 14 regarding the internal pedestrian system as well as the lot lines for the HOA, and we are waiting to hear back from solid waste on a proposed dumpster location. So we have no problems whatsoever with the conditions that staff has put on, and we also would like to thank the staff for all the work that we've had and been able to cross out this many items since the subdivision committee. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them, but we would. Ms. Plumlee. Recommend approval. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I'm going to ask you a weird question. I'm okay with it. What do you consider the focal point of this development? I do not know. I've been criticized for my creativity many times in my life, and so I do not know if I'm exactly the right person to answer what the focal point is. I know there are several different viewpoints of the water that are there. the entire kind of side along where the apartments are is you know kind of open to the water where the clubhouse is you see the site that's right there where the road kind of kind of back ends to when you're coming along this is obviously right out there to there I don't know what to tell you because I am not a creative person in any way shape or form well I didn't aim to put you on the spot but i just you know this was a nice 90 acre plot and i just wondered about that and also as you know uh you need to do a 30 percent canopy tree can correct yes and uh personally i would urge you to go up to to splurge and go up to 32 or 33 percent just because getting back to my focal point. I understand. That some more trees would be nice in this area considering the original plot before it was developed. I understand. And thank you for your consideration. Thank you. And apologies for my lack of creativity. Any other comments or questions? Just to note, Ms. Plumlee, he said that he understood, but he didn't make any commitments. Any other questions for Ms. Nichols? Okay, is anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, if not, we'll pull it back to the commission. Does anyone in the commission have any additional thoughts? If not, Mr. Owens, our motion, that'll be fine. Yep. First of all, a couple of comments. I would like to thank Mr. Cayley and Mr. Nicholson for taking this from 25 conditions to 14. I don't know if the extra two weeks helped you or not, but we appreciate that work. and then secondly looking at the map there and I think I saw 240 lots I'm I might be playing a little bit of where's Waldo here but just a comment particularly future down the road if you can do it with this one to be great I I just shared with Patrick here that personally I think you could take lots 58, 119, and 208, which are corner lots in there, and have green space. And provide some nice amenities to the people that's going to be in there. Give them a little bit more green space. But with that said, I'll move for approval of Plan MJSUB 18-18 Peninsula with the revised 14 conditions. Second. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLN MJSUB 18-18 Peninsula with the revised 14 conditions. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Good afternoon. Next on the agenda for review is MJDP 1800058 Hinda Heights subdivision block B for the old stone townhomes. This plan has had revisions so I would refer you to the salmon colored piece of paper. The site is located at 3009, 3013, and 3021 Tates Creek Road. These addresses are located between Rebecca Drive and Albany Road. Bordering the northern edge of the property, this side, is the Greek Orthodox Church and across the street is the Baptist Church. This development plan is very similar to the plan that you saw during the zone change last month. The site is comprised of 14 townhomes located on a looped private access easement. Each house has space for two cars and there will be overflow parking for 13 vehicles on the north and south portions of the site. The plan has been updated to include a gated entrance, which is set back off Tates Creek Road 40 feet to allow for stacking that does not impact the traffic along Tates Creek. There will also be enhanced landscaping and an ice brick wall around the frontage. These were the exhibits that were given to us. The plan has ten standard sign offs attributed to the various divisions, four cleanup items or conditions, and a single discussion item. The cleanup items are focused on providing further information regarding the dimensions of the site and amount of parking provided on the site. One of our concerns is the shift of the garages to being an optional basement or two car garage. If the garages are going to be part of the required parking, they cannot be considered optional. The discussion item is focused on pedestrian circulation within the site and safe access to the public right of way. As a point of public safety, staff has consistently sought to provide safe pedestrian space separate from vehicles. For this site, we are specifically concerned with the movement of pedestrians from the overflow parking spots to the townhomes, as well as the movement of pedestrians from townhomes to the public right away. The plan also requires a finding to be made by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed access easement. You should find that in your packet as well. Staff has provided you with a copy of these findings and concurs with the applicant that the access easement will adequately serve the townhomes. Consistent with the public health and safety of land subdivision regulations. There is a condition associated with the findings that pedestrian accommodations shall be provided from the dwelling units to ensure that the future residents have a safe path to the public right away and from the public right away. This plan was recommended for approval by the subdivision committee and I'm here to answer any questions if you have any. Any questions? Mr. Owens. Thank you. Now, I flip back a few to the pictures of, I believe what I saw is the gate, brick gate. Yeah. okay did they provide any other pictures of the surrounding wall not as of yet but they will have to provide a sample rendering beyond this and denote that that it works well with what is being presented what time will they have to do that before this is signed excuse me before in the plan is signed before it is certified but after not giving us a chance to see what we're talking about Not beyond this. Okay. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Is someone else going to talk about the findings? Or is it we've done? That was that brief section that I talked about. I got you. Any additional discussion? You covered it? Okay, that's fine. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. of Darby Turner here representing the applicant. Just to clarify a couple of things, there seems to be some confusion, but the units will have two car garages. They may have basements as we get into the geotech, if that's feasible, but it's not an either-or situation. So just to clarify that on the record, and I don't know what we might need to Add to the plan to clarify your parking, but they'll have two car garages plus the driveway in front as addition to the other parking spots located on the end. The walls, I don't know that I've ever had it be a condition that the walls be shown or signed off on before the final development plan is signed. But as we've indicated in all the hearings we've been in, the intent here is to have a – let me go to the plan if I can. I got it. I'm sorry. All right, thanks. The intent here is this wall here will be a six to eight foot brick wall to here. From here, around the front, around to the side. I'm in the wrong way, excuse me. I flipped back. Excuse me. The wall that I've talked about, six to eight feet, will be around here in the rear and to the side. From this part forward, it is intended to be a knee wall of sorts with broad iron on top, around along the whole front and down the side, halfway to the side. So that's what we've indicated in every hearing we've been in relative to that. It's not the intent that we have a high wall around the whole thing. So with that clarification. Now, the one issue that we do have for discussion is with regard to sidewalks. As I understand it, the staff would like to have a sidewalk out of this at each entrance to the street. to the access easement and then a sidewalk around all this. The driveways were increased to 24 feet at behest of traffic engineering to facilitate movement uh each unit would our vision each unit would walk out the front door and walk down this their driveway i did it in my own house for 30 40 years you know i'm not sure what the issue is there the likewise we've got a sidewalk here that goes to accesses the sidewalk the public sidewalk on Tate's group so the residents here there there are only 14 units would have accessed through this access easement as a pedestrian way as well as a vehicular way to that point if they wanted to get out frankly we remember the residents may just do their walks inside a circle so but there's any more sidewalks we're just got come we're going to be adding a tremendous amount of concrete hard surface and we do have some elevation issues the sidewalk if you put it around I mean you wouldn't put a sidewalk up against the front doors and if you put it out here this is only 10 feet right there you wouldn't put it 20 feet excuse Excuse me. I'm sorry. It's only 20 feet. Uh, but if you put it out at the street level, it's got to be at the same height. Because the driveways are going to be there or you're going to be going up and down as you go through there. So, you know, in keeping with that, the trying to increase infill and redevelopment and trying to increase density in these things, we've got to have a little and I understand we're all for pedestrian safety but and more concrete in a situation where it's really not warranted seems to be to us to be counterproductive in terms of adding keeping as much green space as we can and adequately protecting the the residents again it's a small environment with no no pass through traffic going through it. Uh it's only the folks that are in there and their guests that will be. Um or service vehicles and so forth that will be in there. Uh there's no through traffic that goes anywhere. Um and we just simply feel that we're adding a lot of concrete crime concrete from for something that really doesn't make much sense to us so that's where we are and we would we would ask you to approve it prove both the the development plan without any requirement of additional sidewalk and also the access easement the findings for the access easement without the recommendation the additional condition If I can answer any questions, I'd be glad to. And Roy is here as well. Mr. Mullins. If I may, thank you, Mr. Turner. As far as clarification, and the only reason I bring it up, it was much discussed throughout all the meetings as far as the brick wall, what it was going to look like and so forth. Just for clarification, on the front of it, did you say like a four-foot knee wall with wrought iron? On top. Yeah. Yeah. Two, four, six-foot height or something. Right. Four feet is the highest it can be. It can be. The wrought iron cannot be higher than four feet either. That's part of your fence. Okay. You're bound to what she says. We may be saving some money on wrought iron. And to clarify, you're talking about sidewalks and so forth, and blowing up your drawing there, a typical unit, it shows a 24-foot driveway and also a covered entry. That covered entry, I presume, is where the door is going to be? Yes. And it adjoins the driveway? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Yes. Just a minute, Mr. Turner. Any other questions? For clarification, which ones of the 16 you indicated you wanted two deleted, possibly? I'm sorry, say it again? Well, of the 16 conditions that have been provided by staff, I think you indicated you'd like to strike two or more. Well, we've discussed the sidewalks, and we would like it approved without any condition that any other sidewalks be addressed other than as shown on the plan. And then with regard to the findings for the use of the access easement, you'll note that the last paragraph relates to an additional condition related to essentially dwelling units to ensure that the future residents have a safe path to the public right-of-way, which is sidewalks, I presume. I don't want sidewalks to come in under that condition is the issue. Staff have any comments about this? the safe pedestrian transit from the houses to the walkway don't always have to be a sidewalk or something like that it could be a delineation it also could be done through making it a one-way all the way around so as you come into the unit it restricts the movement of cars going both ways keeps people focused on the direction ahead of them so there are multiple ways in which we can improve pedestrian movement throughout this site well the question is is that the applicant is suggesting that maybe we ought to strike at number 13 and maybe make a modification to the to the The question I have is, are you comfortable with that, or do you feel you are? Yes. Okay. So then in that case, what we're saying is then 13 can be taken out. Is that correct? We can strike that on the orange sheet. 13 is denote dimensions of driveways and sidewalks. 14. Oh, okay. Discussed 14. Okay. Take that out. So now we're down to 15. Okay, now, as it relates to the modification for the finding easement, how did you want to rephrase that or how do we clean that up? There should still be some sort of pedestrian connection provided from the residential units to the public right-of-way. We're asking for access easement to replace a public street in this situation, but that doesn't negate the need for public or pedestrian circulation within their development. Okay, so we keep the access easement as it is presented here? That's the staff's recommendation. Okay, I got you. Mr. Turner, do you have any other thoughts about that? Yeah, I just want to make it clear because what we're showing is the access, the pedestrian access is through the access easement as it stands. And that creates conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians unnecessarily. Somebody's going to have to cross the street. Okay. To get there. I got you. Yeah. Any other comments by staff? We're straight, at least from your recommendation. Okay, and we've made sure at least on one accommodation. Now, anyone else in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, then I'll bring it back to the commission. And do you all have additional thoughts, or are you ready for a motion? Mr. Berkeley. I guess just a clarification on 15, that is, provided the Planning Commission makes the findings on the proposed access easement, do we have separate findings? Yes, we do. And it's, okay, that's what I'm trying to find. I don't know that we have that. Yes. We're missing. Oh, you're missing some. Okay. Let me see here. Maybe you go through one of these. Yep, they're right. Give me just a minute. So you've got it. Give me just a minute. Okay. We'll give you a minute. And I assume from the staff's perspective also on, which one was it? On 16, discuss pedestrian circulation within the site. Is that resolved? Okay. Well, the discussion here would resolve that. Are we pulling that one? Okay, got you. We take that out. I got you. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Berkley. Oh, I'm sorry. You ready? That's what you're saying. I'm ready for the motion one way or the other, additional discussion as you have it. Okay, Mr. Burkitt. I'm going to move for approval plan MJDP 18-58 Hinda Heights subdivision, revising number 13 to denote dimensions of driveways, removing number 14. And then are we going to do this access easement separate? Yeah, we could do that. We'll take one at a time. Okay. Okay, we got a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? Okay, Mr. Brewer has seconded the motion. Mr. Berkley has made the motion that we approve PLNMJDP 18-58 into Heights Subdivision Block B with the 15 conditions now provided, revised conditions by staff, noting number 13 that we would approve with the additional definition of the dimensions for the driveways. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, now Mr. Berkley. I'm going to move for approval of the findings for use of access easement striking the recommendation for pedestrian accommodations. Okay, it's been moved again by Mr. Berkley and seconded by Mr. Brewer that we approve PLN JDP 18-58, the Hinder Heights subdivision for the findings as presented by staff striking A under the recommendation is made to subject to the following conditions related to the pedestrian accommodations. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay, while we're getting in line, the next one, if you look under, we have some performance bonds and letters of credit that we need to address. It's somewhere in your home. Yes, sir, Mr. Berkley. I'm going to move for approval of release of call bonds. I second that motion. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Forrester, that we release the call of bonds. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens or when we get ready? I did. Mr. Forrester? I didn't have a vote. Mr. Berkley, was the motion maker? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. And now we move to the zoning items we have for this week. And we'll follow the agenda as indicated. We have, I think I asked the staff earlier whether this would qualify for an abbreviated hearing, and I think the answer might be yes, although we've got several pieces to this, including a traffic study. But Ms. Wade. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. and it does appear that this item would appear for or be permitted as an abbreviated hearing since no one is here to object to the zone change. But we will take it in that fashion. This item does appear on page 6 of your agenda and continues on to page 7. It's PLN MAR 18-14, a request by Cowgill Partners Limited Partnership. They are requesting a rezoning from an agricultural rural zone to an ED, which is our economic development zone for 85.54 acres but a gross acreage of over 100 acres. The property is located at 2550 Winchester Road. The subject property is located in the south-east quadrant of the interstate interchange of I-75 and Winchester Road. And we'll zoom in just a little bit. The property has about a fourth of the frontage between Winchester Road and I'm gonna go back. That didn't help a lot. Between Winchester Road and Manowar, which is the exit to the south of this location. So the frontage along the interstate and then also about an equal amount of frontage along Winchester Road. The property also has frontage on Polo Club Boulevard, which is Collector Street in the expansion area. This property is located within Expansion Area 2A of the area adopted as part of the Expansion Area Master Plan in 1996. I would note, since we don't have our notebooks now, all of the information that would have previously been in your notebook is attached in Granicus, including the application materials supplied by the applicant and the staff's presentation materials. within this general vicinity there are a number of other zoning categories to the east across polo club boulevard remains agricultural in nature and zoning to the north is ear1 and r1a zoning both permit the single family residential land use to the north though there are a number of other uses within those zones and they include the north lexington church of christ and the ear1 zone as well as a Kentucky Utility substation and the expansion area to a pump station here and here, and then a single-family estate lot. The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property, again, from an AR zone to the ED zone. The one particular use they are indicating on their associated development plan is for an assisted living and nursing home facility. They've termed that as a continuous care retirement community. That is a principal permitted use in the ED zone. It will only, or their plans are to only have that encompass 20 acres of the 85-acre site with a proposed development of 460,000 square feet on the site. The remaining 65 acres are shown in a configuration similar to a preliminary subdivision plan without any development plans or development shown. These are photos of the existing conditions of the site. These are views of Winchester Road along the frontage and then along, yeah, both ways along Winchester Road from the subject property looking towards Lexington, the interstate, and then to the north of the property and then also to the east towards Winchester. The subject property and its entrance from Winchester Road and its driveway. There's an existing driveway for the single-family residence that exists on the farm. And then a view along Polo Club Boulevard. Most of the property is being used for agricultural purposes currently. And just an aerial view. You can also see that Hamburg Shopping Center is located to the west of the subject property on the other side of the interstate. that includes the Lowe's and a Walmart shopping center. As I mentioned, the site is located within the expansion area, and in this case was recommended in 1996 for the ED land use, and within expansion area 2A, the ED land use does exist or was recommended at that time between Winchester Road and what is an environmental, I guess, sensitive area with a creek coming down. And so it incorporated about 200 or 150 acres in that location. A good portion of that was rezoned a number of years ago for Baptist Health, and that left this 85-acre site as the only property left in this area recommended for ED but not yet rezoned. Within the expansion area master plan, the ED land uses were designated near the interstate and interstate interchanges in order to utilize that infrastructure for economic development land use. Recently, the economic development zone was updated to accommodate additional uses as well as to, I think one of the main points of the text amendment was to reduce some of the barriers to development. and so that occurred within the last few years. At that time, principal permitted uses were increased, and it includes both offices and research centers, manufacturing, and health care, which all have high rates of employment opportunities. At that time, there was also addition of supportive uses, such as restaurants, hotels, and dwelling units, which were intended to help create a more desirable employment center, and in this location as well as in expansion area three the 2013 comprehensive plan identified again that economic development is an important aspect for our community and emphasized the need for jobs infrastructure and job or economic development ready land so the applicant is proposing to redevelop or rezone the property in order to provide not just the one site for development but for future development of the rest of the 65 acres. The goals and objectives that relate to employment include creating under theme C, creating prosperity and jobs, fostering the success of large employment sectors which would include health care as the applicant is proposing. In addition, providing for accessible community facilities to meet health, safety, and quality of life needs of our visitors and residents. An assisted living facility would meet that need as well. And then upholding the urban service area boundary concept and encouraging development of underutilized and or vacant properties. So the applicant opined that they met the comprehensive plan recommendations from 2013 as well as the 2018 goals and objectives. in terms of, again, supporting the creation of prosperity and jobs, which was theme C. They also mentioned in their justification, of course, that they were meeting the expansion area master plan's land use recommendation. So the staff and the zoning committee both found that the proposal was in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and we recommended approval of the proposed rezoning. The staff did to the zoning committee three weeks ago, and the zoning committee agreed with that recommendation and made a recommendation to the full planning commission of approval as well. That recommendation is made subject to the approval of the provided zoning development plan, which Mr. Martin will present. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. We also have a traffic impact study associated with this development plan, which Mr. Conyers is here to present as well. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, at the bottom of page 7 on your agenda, item B is the plan. It's a preliminary development plan, 18-57 Calgo Partners property, also now known as Meadowcrest. And as you can see from the plan that is associated with this zone change, here we have Polo Club and Winchester Road. Of course, this is I-75. The applicant's proposing an internal local street in this location, along with they are proposing access to Winchester Road with a connection in this location. You can see the lotting pattern that they are proposing. They vary in size from a little over an acre to several acres to 12 and 14 acres in size, the proposed lotting. But what is currently driving this proposal, of course, is, as Ms. Wade mentioned, is this area in here where they're proposing a retirement community assisted living facilities. And this is a preliminary plan, so there will be a final development plan on this property, as well as none of these properties will develop until such time as there's a final development plan. Now, you can see this area here and this area, these. These have all been identified in your expansion area master plan as associated with the stormwater management, as well as some environmentally sensitive areas. this particular area for instance has a sinkhole may be present that's been identified but these areas are primarily important to your stormwater management plan for the expansion area and that will be addressed in full at the time of a final development plan because i'm sure as you all are aware at that time they have to submit reports on how they comply with the expansion area master plan and that includes infrastructure design and other criteria in the expansion plan and so at that time of course you will be presented with full reports on their compliance with those particular issues again this being a a preliminary plan for the purpose of the zone change they do not they are not required to submit those reports now there are as always several issues that we like to to identify up front in this process. Polo Club Boulevard was approved on a final development plan, and its access points were all set, and they meet that access point. That actually meets the requirement for the spacing. Now, as always, there's concerns about access, and principally in this situation, they're not allowed any further access to Polo Club Boulevard. That's denoted on the plan, and that's these lots. We wanted to make it very clear, and even though there will be a final development plan, those lots are going to have to access an internal system. Besides the access to Winchester Road, they're proposing access easements in these locations. We are willing, again, staff is, and talking with the applicant to address that at the time of a final development plan. But to be very clear about staff's concern, again, is the adequacy of the access easements in serving development, particularly in ED development and the type of businesses that may locate out there and the amount of traffic that could very well be generated. And, again, a lot of people don't think about this, but your roads aren't just street systems, and they certainly are street systems, but they also play a secondary role in your stormwater management. That's why they have curb and gutter, for instance. And so, again, the adequacy of the access easements are a concern. The other very large concern, again, that we've identified and we believe is a final development plan issue is the access to Winchester Road. They're proposing a write-in, write-out. Staff's concerns with write-in, write-outs always are will they function safely, particularly where there aren't adequate median controls, staff has serious concerns. There's also always concerns relative to the location to stoplights and other access points. In this case, part of that concern, and it may ultimately be part of the solution, is that there will be a stoplight eventually at this location, a polo club in Winchester Road. That's planned for. So again, those are those access. That's our primary concerns. Another concern that we have that they have accommodated us on is making sure there's room in this area for a connection under the interstate to Hamburg. And staff is happy to report that it's our understanding that that's very close to being a reality. And we think that would be of tremendous benefit to the traffic movement in the area and benefit both developments tremendously. With that, staff is recommending approval of the preliminary development plan. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. And then after me, Mr. Max Conyers is going to present the traffic study to you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. As Tom said, I'm Max Conyers with the Transportation Planning Staff and the MPO. I'll be presenting for Mr. Jimmy Emmons, who has worked through this entire process and has prepared this update to the original traffic impact study that was given both at the subdivision and the zoning committees. The good news is that all of the previous issues that were discussed have been resolved, except for one narrow issue that we'll focus on today, which Tom's already mentioned. Jimmy's prepared some graphics here. Subject property. And the signalized locations. The two signalized locations in red, the red circles. And the proposed right in, right out, about midpoint on Winchester Road. And then you see the pink line there. That is the proposed Sir Barton Polo Club connector project road that was recommended from a 2016 Man of War and I-75 congestion study that we conducted very extensively with the district KYTC as a result of traffic backing up onto the interstate mainly because the federal government does not like that happening in very dangerous conditions. And so this came out as a very good recommendation. It's one that we are currently considering for our master plan update. And we can feel that's a very important future connection to alleviate danger and connection to the two interchanges. On here. So the staff agrees with all the needs for signalization. And we actually prefer the applicant's connection under the interstate to that internal road, which would then help distribute traffic more evenly throughout the area, instead of just coming straight under the interstate and directly to Polo Club. So we kind of like that future scenario that has to all be worked out. But the staff's kind of position on the right-in-right has a few nuances. Mr. Martin's already touched on those. So you see Jimmy's graphics. I'll try to get through. That's a check. A check. I like Jimmy's graphics. And there's the nuance. So zooming in here, we can see that the applicant proposes to close the median. that median open directly in front of their main access point there from the right in right out, which is needed, which is very much needed. You wouldn't want that there for a right in right out or people would be turning left and so forth. And they want to put a note on their plan that says the right out can be further discussed at the final development plan time. The staff's concern with that is that the Miller property just to the north has an access median opening just to the east, a short 200 feet to the east. And that right out access point, the majority of the people that would utilize this land use, the demand would be towards town. That can be an example is that traffic counts that were taken shows 200 vehicles turning left from Polo Club at Winchester, only about six turning right towards Winchester going east. So you can tell the biggest demand is to the west. During peak times, we feel that this movement would be very dangerous because there's just simply not enough room to exit right out of that entrance. Because you're immediately cutting across two lanes of traffic and then almost having to come to a stop to get into that median opening. Winchester Road has a lot of speed, a lot of heavy vehicles. This is our official coal haul route through this area for all the coal. It's about 100,000 tons of coal being moved past this yearly. Large vehicles. and we don't think there'll be a lot of cars trying to make this this movement. However, it doesn't take many for the danger. So basically, there's no kind of deceleration lane there at all either. So if you had two cars wanted to make one, the second car would have to basically wait in the fast lane, you know, just for the other one to clear, to just queue there. And so there's a lot of speed, a lot of volume as I say and more to come in the future. I just want to say that the staff is not against the write-out at all because we've seen these used successfully all over town. It's just the way it's presented on this current plan we feel is kind of dangerous and in in order to design this properly we would probably have to close that median opening move it further to the east and And then ideally you'd want the U-turn to be made at the intersection of Polo Club and Winchester if you were going to make that move. And the signal would stop all vehicles to make that move safely. So it's difficult to see a solution without some further improvements along the road there in the future. And so, bottom line is the applicant proposed to show the right out on this plan at this time with a note that they're willing to discuss it in the future. And we definitely understand this from a viewpoint of marketability, you know, especially for highway commercial oriented uses and everything. However, we feel that safe access management should be the priority here. And in addition, our past experience has been that if you show these types of accesses on the plan, even preliminarily, there becomes an assumption that there's a vested right to this access. And it's very difficult to remove it. It's just a visual. A visual is worth a thousand notes is what I was going to say. And so I'll wrap up in just conclusion that the staff recommends that the applicant remove the write-out from the development plan at this time, but leave the note that the write-in or the write-out can be further discussed at the later development plan stage. And once again, we are not opposed to the write-out. We just want to work it out in a safe manner for the convenient and safe access for this corridor. and we definitely want to learn from our past. Try not to do the things to the west a little bit that we're having to retrofit and deal with. We know the volume is going to increase heavily in this area with development. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. I'll be glad to try and answer any questions. Ms. Mundy has one for you. I don't know if you can get back to it or not, but the picture that shows the slanted entrance from under the interstate, that viaduct there, if you can get back to that. You seem to think that is a better alternative than coming straight through under there, yet when I look at the map I have, that's coming right into an area where there is a possible, and I believe it's already been validated that there's a, gosh, senior moment. But anyway, a hole in the ground there and a sinkhole. Yes. And clearly on the map that I had pulled up until I asked to speak shows that there is a wetlands or water or something in that area. Yet if you straighten that out, which is the other proposal you had, it runs along that property line and it kind of alleviates any issue for this property owner. Yes, I think at this time it's so preliminary, even in that original study, that you can see that there's a little road, I forget what the name of it is there, coming off Sir Barton. That would have to curve around coming in a right angle to the interstate, you know, for a tunnel to be built there. And then how this would be handled by the developer and the engineers at that time, i i can't really speak to it what's that i'm sorry this is not confirmed no no not at all not at all and it's just a connection that is just wonderful for uh alleviating unnecessary traffic at the two interchanges which is always becoming a problem today though i think at the times one of those interchanges was designed there the urban service area did not go east of the interstate so it was kind of under designed you know so anything we can do to help distribute traffic absolutely you know i think it's a great idea yeah okay thank you mr berkeley yeah i'm i'm wondering uh if uh some of your suggestions here the uh possible moving of median installation of traffic light and possibly this tunnel um can we not make those exactable items whereby they could apply for or use those as credits? I would have to defer to our law department probably for that. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Berkeley, the Winchester Road is not part of the beneficiary of the exactions, so the Polo Club intersection would not be, we couldn't make that signal subject to exactions. The tunnel would not be part of that either, but we also believe, again, as Max said, this seems like a fantastic project, but there is reality to it that that would best be accomplished when the interstate was being widened. So at that time that could even be covered mostly by the interstate improvements and would not have to be paid for by the developer. And I should say that even another recommendation of that plan was to put an auxiliary lane from Winchester all the way down to Manor War, another lane, basically, In addition to what the federal government is, it made the shift process, the six-year plan, to widen that whole section to three lanes or each direction, another lane added through the common route of the interstate. So that's coming in the next four or five years also. And as Jim said, we'd love to get that synergy of when they do that, get the tunnel building. And we might have to use our local dollars for that, our SLX, our federal designated dollars. And that's what our plan process is kind of vetting through right now. Any other questions for Mr. Conyers? I think we've got a good project here, but I can see that we've got a little work to do. Yes. Oh, yeah. Applicant. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant, Calgill Partners. It's been a while since I've seen you all, so it's good to see you again. I note that you've already asked for an abbreviated hearing, so I feel like the welcome is not as warm. I'm kidding. Though I feel my PowerPoint skills may be getting rusty, I did refrain today because you noticed we had recommendations of approval. and I've learned many things in my time appearing in front of you, but generally they are do not argue with a recommendation of approval. So I'm delighted that staff sees that we are in compliance with the 2013 comp plan, the 2018 comp plan, and the 1996 expansion area master plan. I think many of you remember the very significant evaluation and amendments that we made to the economic development zone, and this is our first effort at identifying a principal use. I'm trying to disaffect myself of the use of the terms of nursing home or retirement home or rest home. I'm told that is not the terminology we use anymore. It is a continuous care retirement community. This facility will have more independent living units all the way up to these skilled memory care facilities for those suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia. I want to touch briefly I think all of the issues I have to address are tied to the development plan. None of them I think are particularly significant. With regard to Mr. Martin's comments about the access easements, we are very mindful of staff's concerns there. The access easements that we reflected on the plan did show curb and gutter. We understand staff's desire to have them constructed to urban county standards because of the traffic they may carry. we're certainly happy to resolve that at the time of the final development plan and I'll tell you the reason why is the lotting pattern with the exception of the continuous care retirement community is purely hypothetical at this point we discussed with staff before we filed this application should we try to depict some other uses on this property even though we'd just really be guessing throwing it at artboard or would you just rather it show a lotting pattern they indulged distance that a lotting pattern was fine. I don't know what the next use will come, but you'll see it because it will have to come forward on a final development plan. So these lots may change probably with the exception of the CCRC use. So we think it's functional. We think it works well, but don't get too attached to these. They could change many times between now and then. So that was one issue I wanted to address specifically. With regard to the tunnel, I was going to jokingly say that we're going to build a tunnel and we're going to make the feds pay for it. But they are far more optimistic about the prospects of the tunnel. I am surely because of the cost. Ms. Mundy, I thought your observation was very poignant. The low point in the area where the tunnel is proposed to come through is also near one of the drainage areas on our property. So needless to say, there's a lot of work to have to be done on that. The best news I can offer you is I think this is a first. Staff like something I had more than their original plan, think that our system may work better than theirs, which I think is wonderful. I mean, there's nothing on our current plan that would inhibit the ability. tunnel to come to fruition should it be able to be funded the only issue that i'm going to touch on briefly is the right in right out you've heard a lot of discussion about it so here are my few comments on that topic we have had preliminary discussions with district 7 of the transportation cabinet who of course has jurisdiction over winchester road and they remain open to a right in right out we've had conversations with lfucg traffic engineering and they remain open to to the concept of a write in, write out. And I believe Max just told you that they don't necessarily have an objection. I think the phrase that pays here is the devil is in the details. And there are significant improvements and alterations that will need to be made to Winchester Road as this development comes online. I don't believe the CCRC use is going to generate a whole lot of traffic. It really would be some of our other uses that I think would generate more traffic in the long run. And we've committed to a note the subdivision committee approved are looking at this issue when a final development plan comes through if you approve this plan today i'm not going to be out there with a shovel tonight putting in a right in right out this will have to come back to you on a final development plan so i would say that the depiction or not is a distinction without a difference you enforce notes on plans all the time i will go on record and say we are fully committed to evaluating the appropriateness of that right in right out when a final development plan comes to you however as mr conyers noted for many purposes primarily marketability but many others i would like for it to remain depicted because we have not been told that it is not feasible moving forward yet no one has said that this cannot happen in that case i would readily concede that it needs to come off that's not the case here the plan you have in front of you has been recommended for approval it was recommended for approval by your staff and by your subdivision committee with the notation that we could resolve this at time of final development plan i'd ask you just to carry forward that recommendation with that i think i've addressed all the issues that i had if you have any specific questions for me i'd be glad to entertain them and we'd appreciate your approval today okay thank you any questions for mr wilburn miss plumley thank you um it's it's uh delightful to have some ED land moving forward and it falls within the comp plan and staff recommendations that this is a health facility which is fits the picture and this will employ like 80 people perhaps I think it could be quite a bit more than that this will likely be a phased development I think it will come online over time but you really do see and I think it's very helpful in the economic development zone, a fairly wide range of job opportunities for people. You will have skilled healthcare professionals, doctors and nurses on down to grounds people, folks that work on the property. So it creates a wide range of jobs. I don't want to commit to a number, but the numbers I think I've heard floated around are closer to 150 to 200. Well, I quoted 80 because that's what was in the staff report. And I'll accept it. And that you kind of jumped ahead of my question, which is okay because I associate nursing homes quote that's kind of what it is as just slightly above entry level jobs which and we're taking land that's right there by the interstate and a nursing home can be internal somewhere else it doesn't have to be on the interstate so that that's just why in my mind I'm questioning this even though it's a nice plan. Well I do believe that number was 80 employees per shift. Is that correct? Right. The information that the applicant provided in their justification didn't indicate a number of jobs, but we based 80 on the minimum. I mean, the development plan showed that 80 people would be working on the maximum shift. So a minimum of 80 employees would be there at any given point. And then that doesn't include the 65 other acres that would generate jobs as well in this site so obviously there would be quite a few more jobs thank you okay any other questions comments okay thank you mr wolvin anyone in the audience would like to address this issue okay then back to the commission for any additional discussion and our motion Mr. Owens Mr. Chair I would agree with Carolyn in saying that I am pleased to see ED land moving forward it's been slated for that for some time and I think this is a good opportunity for a lot of things to take place there. With that said, I'll move for approval. If I can find the proper number. I'll move for approval of the Calgary property. It's plan MAR18-18 Calgary Properties LP with the two noted conditions, recommendations provided by staff. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Mr. Larry Foster, that we approve PLN MAR 18-14, Calgary Partners LP, with the two conditions noted by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries. Mr. Owens, would you like to carry it for? Yes, sir, and Patrick next door to me here, and the chair did correct me that That plan was MAR 18-14, but moving forward, plan MJDP 18-57 Calgary properties LP property, Meadowcrest, I move for approval with the 11 noted conditions. Second. Okay, Mr. Morin moves and Mr. Forrester seconds that we Approved PLN MJDP 18-57 Calgary Partners LLP Property Metacrest with 11 conditions noted by staff. Any other discussions on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you, that motion carries as well. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Okay, we covered everything just about except we move to the public hearing on zoning ordinance, Next amendment. You all need a break or can we push through? Go. Some do, some don't. Okay, some do and some don't. Okay, I'll give you five minutes. Five minute break. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson. Our next item appears at the very bottom of page 7 of your agenda, and it is ZODA 2018-2, an amendment to expand accessory uses to an agricultural market. And this was in particular initiated for the AR zone. As just a refresher, the text amendment that's before you today, we are on a 60-day timeline because the council initiated this text amendment in july and so we just have until basically the very first of september to act and send a recommendation back to the council related to the proposed amendment the staff handed out in your packet today a staff report which i know is typically on a brown sheet but it's in a packet and it's shown on a white and attached to it is a revised staff alternative text and that includes the ar zone on the first three pages and then on the last four to five pages is a staff alternative text related to article 24b which we spoke about last week and that's the we'll start to go through here, the other location where agricultural markets are allowed in the zoning ordinance. So Article 1 of the zoning ordinance defines an agricultural market, which is the location or place where you would be buying or selling of agricultural or farm products, and that can include a stockyard as well as aquaculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, forestry, etc. The agricultural market is permitted in two ways via our zoning ordinance. The first is through a conditional use in the AR zone, and the second is via a overlay zone, the AM, or Agricultural Market Overlay Zone, which is present in Article 24 of the zoning ordinance. Article 8-1 is the section that was proposed for change by the council. what we spoke about this last week, that would have, if we only changed that section, that would have left an inconsistency in the zoning ordinance between Article 8 and Article 24. The agricultural market ZODA proposes several changes to what is currently permitted in Article 8-1 of the ordinance. 8-1 is where, again, AR, our AR zone, is located. The agricultural market is a conditional use. It's listed as conditional use number seven in the ordinance. And currently, I guess we'll back up before I get into the proposed changes. Currently, an agricultural market does have locational criteria. You have to be located on a 40-acre site in order to qualify. In addition, you have to be located within one mile of an interstate interchange to qualify for the conditional use and also have frontage along a state or federal highway. The facility associated with an agricultural market also has additional locational setback requirements. So the facility has to be located at least 1,000 feet from a residential zone, also 1,000 feet from a rural settlement or existing rural residential land use and land designated on the National Register of Historic Places. and it also, the facility for an agricultural market has to be located outside of an environmentally sensitive area, so a floodplain or sinkholes, that sort of thing. So even to qualify for an agricultural market, obviously there's a lot of conditions associated with that. And once an agricultural market is established, there are additional limitations on the use itself, and an operational plan is required as well. Part of the proposed text amendment today is to clarify the definition of facility so that a stockyard activity would be located within at least 1,000 feet from residential zoning, but other activities on the lot could be closer. And that's under number one and number two listed on the overhead. The proposed text amendment also calls to eliminate the size limitations for accessory uses. So currently the ordinance allows for up to 40,000 square feet of accessory uses related to an agricultural market, or 25%. And then the proposed text amendment proposes additional accessory uses, in this case retail sale of farm machinery and their repair, and then also covered agenda, I'm sorry, not agenda, arena, covered event arena for agricultural or agritourism uses, or two new accessory uses. And then again, the text amendment restricts or puts limitations not on the overall number or square footage of accessory uses, but on an individual basis. So the following accessory uses were proposed for limitation. Offices and meeting rooms would be allowed up to 60,000 square feet. Coffee shop or restaurant up to 5,000. Retail sale of farm machinery up to 20,000 square feet. The covered event arena, up to 75,000 square feet. And then the retail sale of agricultural products, up to 25,000 square feet. The staff noted that there was not a change or limit associated with a veterinary clinic or owner-operator caretaker dwelling units. The proposed text amendment that came from council also made a change to the size of freestanding signs to increase it from 50 square feet to 100 square feet. They're allowed for two signs, so that would double the size of the signage. And then made some adjustments in the prohibited uses section to call out, basically pointing to the fact that museums, offices, and institutional uses, as well as major and minor automobile repair, would be allowed because they are listed somewhere else in the ordinance. so instead of it just being completely prohibited it would have the phrase except as permitted herein added to it for clarification and then the last change had to do with small farm winery which seemed to be a bit outside of the scope of this text amendment but it was marked on their initiated text that came to the planning commission so the staff has presented this to the zoning committee three weeks ago and received a recommendation of approval to the rest of the planning commission at that time we also agreed that we needed to bring the text to the full commission at a work session so we did that last week and discussed the changes that the staff was recommending to the proposed text amendment and then also mentioned to you that the staff had met with the bluegrass stockyards and talk to them about their requested small changes to what the staff alternative proposed so we'll walk through the staff alternative text fairly quickly for the most part it does mimic what the council initiated just a few months ago but so i'm going to pinpoint the staff alternative changes um so for clarity the staff proposed to simplify subsection 7f which is on page one of the staff alternative text and through the process of meeting with the bluegrass stockyards there was a request to clarify additional language so that the setback of a thousand feet from a residence on another lot would not apply to accessory uses, agricultural uses, and parking lots and driveways. So the staff agreed that that was a great change to make to improve the language. And so on page one of the staff alternative text, you'll see red changes that are underlined or crossed through. Those were in the original staff alternative. And then the blue in subsection F is the additional change we made this week since we met as commission at the work session. The second change that the staff proposed with the staff alternative text is on page two, and that's under subsection N. So, again, I mentioned there's currently a restriction on accessory uses to a limit of 40,000 square feet or 25% of the principal use. the staff recommends that there remain a limit on the size of the accessory, total accessory uses. And that ensures that those accessory uses remain subordinate to the principal use. And in this case, it would be 50%. So the example we've talked about is if on the site you have 400,000 square feet of usable square footage, 200,000 would be dedicated to your principal use of the agricultural market. and then the other 200,000 could be divided up amongst the accessory uses. The staff also made a suggestion in our alternative text that the restaurant or coffee shop remain located within the principal structure, which would prevent basically a standalone restaurant. and again not wanting it to be a act as a principal use and attract so much attention or visitorship but still remain in support of the agricultural market use number four was the addition on the overhead here of agriculture related museums as an accessory use and that was something that the stock bluegrass stockyards discussed with the staff when we met with them a few weeks ago and that appears as number nine under the accessory use list number five change the staff did not agree with increase in the signage from 50 to 100 square feet per sign which gave them up to 200 square feet they also have the ability to transfer square footage of signage the staff made that recommendation based on the this are the current work the staff's doing on the sign ordinance and the proposed sizes that are related to signage in that particular text amendment that will be we feel initiated within the next few months the last few things are again sort of cleanup no exception for automobile service stations staff didn't feel that was necessary under prohibited uses that appears on page three and the last thing was the parking no parking change for the bistro for wineries we weren't sure why that was really included in the first place and then the last change since we met last week was to include an alternative text that updated article 24b so that it was consistent with these changes suggested in article 8-1 and so that would be new text for the planning commission to see today but is on our handout would start on page four and again is shown in blue to indicate it's a change from last week on to pages five six and seven of the handout the staff is recommending approval as did the zoning committee a few weeks ago of the staff alternative text and there were two reasons the first is the text amendment grants flexibility to an agricultural market to expand scope and scale of accessory uses in support of the agricultural economy of lexington and fayette county expanded uses would be co-located on the site and that allows for agribusiness activities in places that are supported by existing infrastructure the second reason is an agricultural market including its accessory uses is an agribusiness operation that can provide learning opportunities hospitality tourism and ag related recreation for the general public this was a direct relation to the existing or the recently adopted 2017 rural land management plan and the recommendations from that particular plan which is an element now that's been adopted of the 2013 comprehensive plan. So again, the staff recommends approval of the staff alternative text, and we have shared that with Mr. Akers from Bluegrass Stockyards today, as well as Fayette Alliance, and I apologize. Fayette Alliance provided a letter of support, and I will grab that and distribute it for you while you think of any questions for me. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Yes, Mr. Owens. Oh, what's... Thank you. This has been going forward with Article 8. I know at the work session you mentioned 24B, which I agreed with. Is it appropriate to include 24B at this point with this text amendment? Well, the text is mimicking the changes initiated by the council. I guess the law department might need to weigh in. No one has utilized Article 24B at this point. So changes to it won't impact any landowners necessarily. It would adjust things for anyone who chose to apply for that in the future. Nothing to add? Okay. Like I said, just process-wise as much as anything. Any other comments or questions? I guess that's it. Process-wise, our next step will be to forward the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the council, and then the council would have their typical three options, either having a committee review it, doing the typical two readings of a legislative change, or having a public hearing. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to address this particular text amendment? Okay. We'll bring it back here for additional discussion and our motion. To clarify, as far as moving this forward, if that's where we go, do we include 24B with this or just the approval of Zota 2018-2? Good enough. this uh you mean in terms of a title yeah we can revise the title to include article 24-b they're both for agricultural markets okay all right then mr chair i'll move for approval of this text amendment to move forward of this with zota 2018-2 the amendment to expand accessory uses to an agricultural market in the ar zone okay can i add to that motion that with the two reasons provided by staff i'm sorry yes sir okay that's okay i just want to get the minutes straight do we have a second on that mr forrester's seconded so the motion has been made by mr owen seconded by mr forrester that we approve 2018 2 this is a zoning ordinance text amendment 2018-2 amendment to expand accessory uses to an agricultural market in the agricultural rural ar zone for the two reasons provided by staff any other discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on your screen okay that takes care of that thank you we have one other item under commission items this way does anyone want to introduce oh you're doing it now i got it The last item for consideration on your agenda today that, again, the staff has talked to the Planning Commission about the last two months was initiation of a subdivision regulation text amendment to update Article 6-8 related to sidewalks and shared use paths. And Mr. Bailey just handed out the text related to that. And this is the only change from what we saw last week occurred on page 6-3 and was the question that was brought up about five versus six feet. And so the staff updated that. Otherwise, it's the same text that we discussed last week. Staff would ask for you to initiate that text. And then we have plans to continue to work with stakeholders related to the change and make sure that Mr. Thompson and I would meet with the builders to address Mr. Berkeley's concern about cost and make sure that they understand the proposed changes. Mr. Berkeley? Yeah, I did voice some of those concerns. but last week not everybody was there. I do have a problem with the six-foot. I engaged the Home Builders Association with the question, and they provided a cost of about $800 for a 45-foot lot that it would increase the cost. Secondly, I still have not heard real justification, in my mind anyway, for the reason of going over and above the ADA requirements. And the other one is non-residential and industrial collector connectors. We're going from four feet to eight feet, I mean doubling it. I haven't heard any justification for that. When we were initially presented this by Scott, it was a five foot. It was an increase to five foot. And then it came back last month, and it said five foot in the text still, and the chart was all six foot minimum. So I'm not in favor of advancing this at this point. It was also noted, I think, by Scott that this would be or this would coincide with maybe a reduction in streets, street widths. But we don't have that in front of us. Well, he and I discussed that and I apologize that he's not able to be here today to address your questions directly. The question or the statement about the over and above the ADA requirements, the ADA requirements are that there be a five-foot clear at landing locations to allow for turning movements of, again, usually wheelchairs. But the desired width of sidewalks is that they be six feet to allow for two mobility, or it could be two strollers to pass side by side without people having to get off of the sidewalk to allow another person to pass. So that's the desired, and that fully meets ADA requirements. Six feet does. So does five. Not a five-foot strip. the five-foot landings every so many feet does but six foot entirely meet well i mean you you you know if i'll give you an example okay you got a 45 foot lot 45 foot wide lot you got a driveway that is probably what 10 12 feet wide no 25 feet okay 25 feet wide Why can't you use that to pass? I mean, if it's a 45-foot lot and you've got a 25-foot driveway, that means there's only 20 feet in between. But sidewalks aren't provided only in residential areas. That's one example. And if you've talked to Todd Johnson about the builders, that's a portion of our community is single-family homes. but another portion is the apartments and townhomes and commercial developments and ed land so we want to make sure that the ada requirements are met across all land uses all right well let let me let me uh tell me why it needs to be eight foot in a non-residential and industrial collector scott and i talked about that as well and his um for lack of a better word argument was that in for instance in the ED land they would you would have a large number of people working in that area and also people coming to visit those areas and so you would have more people utilizing the sidewalks in high employment areas and that's where the collector connector streets are used so that's so more people means you need wider sidewalks Yes, sir. That is exactly how the Lexington Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan lays it out. It's a matrix system, so the higher volume of traffic that you have on a street, the wider the sidewalk should be to accommodate pedestrian traffic as well. I just think there's been no regard here for cost, for one thing. I think it'll affect the engineering of a project considerably. and it uses more land, and it puts more nonpermeable surfaces out there, and I'm not in favor of the way this is written right now. And in my opinion, we should have been presented the streets at the same time. Well, we'll update the cross sections based on the decisions. So we wouldn't update all the drawings. Again, our division doesn't do those drawings. The Division of Engineering does. So it's difficult to ask them to update something. And then if the commission or the council changes it, update it again. So we would just reflect what is adopted in those cross sections. But in terms of the, he did mention two months ago, the less pavement. And that comes into play where we're doing traffic calming. So you have the bump outs. And in those locations, you have less pavement. and that allows for some offset in addition something that we've been doing for a number of years is where sidewalks are wider instead of having that sidewalk completely located within the right-of-way there's an allowance for an easement onto the property itself and especially in the single-family residential neighborhoods that allows for the setback to remain 20 or 30 feet right tom from the right-of-way but your sidewalk then sort of encroaches into your front yard which most people don't notice that difference, and then it doesn't impact the cost or your setback in terms of losing land. You're not actually increasing the lot size two feet. You're just utilizing more of your front yard for the sidewalk rather than – Which means more concrete, more permeable surface, less green space, less – Planning is a balance. I just think it's unnecessary. I wouldn't want to walk out my front door and look at a six-foot sidewalk. I would. Well, let me put it this way. Ms. Mundy has a few questions. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I have two questions. Yes, ma'am. Will there be accommodations for additional runoff with the storm sewer system now? Because with these being wider, there's going to be more water runoff rather than it being on a permeable surface like the grass. I cannot answer that question today. I don't know if there is anyone. Tom, do you think? I will. Vaughn's sitting back there, but new subdivisions, all that's taken into account to determine the sewer system and the credits that they get for permeable versus impermeable pavement or space. All that goes into a calculation. In fact, they get down to the details of whether or not your gutters go into the ground or not in determining those types of issues in the infrastructure. So it would be accommodated? Okay. And then, you know, I've been walking a lot lately trying to get a little more exercise, and I have to come in town to do that because I'm not going to walk on Jack's Creek. but and when I come in town and I'm walking on the sidewalks I'm seeing a lot of red X's on sidewalks in different neighborhoods where I'm walking in that so my next question is so this is going to put a burden on the homeowner for replacement down the road when they have to do six foot instead of no you would replace your existing curb cross-section you wouldn't have to increase your frontage to six feet I have a four foot sidewalk in my front yard and when I replace it because my pear trees are buckling things I will always have to put in four feet. But in the new subdivisions and I know you're looking at maybe five to ten years down the road or you might be if it's a bad concrete job you might be looking at next year. Right. The homeowner then has to replace and put out extra money for a wider. So in my mind it's just an additional tax because you're putting this burden of a six-foot sidewalk instead of a five-foot sidewalk and always only a foot it's a lot of money when you're pouring concrete and the labor and so forth you're putting that on the homeowner and that bothers me well I think the homeowners purchasing the sidewalk from the beginning it's the I know mr. Berkeley mentioned the builders and the developers putting out that cost but ultimately the person who buys the house pays for whatever the builder is putting into the lot and that includes the sidewalks and other infrastructure too so ultimately you're making that decision when you look at you know home on Jack's Creek versus a home in the city I have a different cost for maintaining my property than the here versus here and ultimately from planning's perspective and from the MPO we're looking at ways to improve our community's quality of life and that includes wider sidewalks okay mr hond mr martin did you have thank you mr chair um with i guess starting with ada uh ADA is recommended minimum five feet. Is that correct? At landings, so that people can maneuver and turn. Basically, it's in order for someone to come to a complete stop in a wheelchair and make a 90 degree turn to move in a new direction. Are you saying that for a sidewalk itself, they're not recommended a minimum of five feet? know i don't know the federal act to know to be able to recite it that way miss cowker or miss adkins might okay well at any any point um i know we were talking about it a couple of weeks ago last week whenever it was um my take was was that the ada was recommending five feet i didn't realize it was just at landings you know a five foot sidewalk to me i think is adequate six feet personally i think is getting a little excessive and unless it's some sort of shared use trail i think eight feet whether wherever it is unless it's a shared use trail i think would be excessive as well i don't i just don't see this as being ready to go forward at this time so six feet is the minimum to allow two people in mobility challenge situations to pass that meets ada standards five does not allow that if you're walking down the sidewalk you would then have to wait at that stopping point for the other person to come and be able to pass so again we're looking for how do we make our community better for all let me ask you this can you can can you provide us with examples of other town cities that's gone this route absolutely and you know show i mean i'm not that well traveled but i do get around and i just don't see those widths in in other places i think you might not just know just don't notice them because the whole development is built at that standard my 10 year old noticed when we go from a four foot sidewalk to a six foot because she and i can no longer be next to each other okay you know at this point my preference would be to discuss this a little bit more mr bell you know for me we're we're thinking about the future and building for the future and um our family lives on right at the corner of sycamore and richmond road and so that's a lot of people go to ashland and um i've edged our sidewalks and so if you're trying to pass if going to have two strollers pass or or you know two whatever pass you get a wheel off on that edge of the sidewalk and i i'm concerned about those kinds of things i think we're trying to anticipate you know more usage more of of walking and biking and anticipate in the future and $800 in the big scheme of things of an investment in the house for me is is is a bit short-sighted for the convenience of people being overpass easily so I'd be in favor of it myself. Okay Miss Monday. I just did a quick search on here. What is ADA requirements for sidewalks? A defined walkway is required across all driveways. The defined walkway will consist of a paved four-foot wide at minimum with a cross slope of 1% to meet ADA standards. Again, that is not what I've been told by our pedestrian and bicycle planner to share with you all. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And I don't know the source that you pulled that up from either. I can give you that. It is the MO DOT, an engineering site for design. MO DOT would be Missouri Department of Transportation. No, it's an engineering site for designing sidewalks. ADA standards for sidewalks. So we would use NASHTO or AASHTO as our standards. Well, actually, if I go on down and look at the legal beagle, which is a legal description, it says 36 inches or three feet. And I believe those are outdated. So 36 inches is not adequate. Well, it seems like we have differences in terms of resources, in terms of what is actually here. Anyone else like to make any comments? Yes, sir, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, I do want to remind the Planning Commission that we're not asking you to approve these changes today. What we're asking for is the initiation of the discussion so that we can continue this through work session, through meetings like this, and have these discussions. We make sure that we have our bike pedestrian planner here to talk to you. With the Planning Commission initiating a text amendment, there is no timeline, Unlike the ag text amendment that you just addressed, you had 60 days to address that. Any text amendment that you address has no timeline. So this discussion can continue, but we think it's important to get this started officially. Otherwise, we're shutting it down completely now without having the discussion and coming to a decision about what we want to do. So it's quite possible, certainly, that the text amendment, if this proceeds, that you all would recommend to the council would be different than what's before you right now. But in order to do that, we need to go ahead and initiate this text amendment, have that discussion, and then decide what it is you all would like to advance to the council to consider. Very good. And I think that's a reasonable request. And coming from the chair, I would think that's essentially what we ought to do is have the discussion, and then we can make a determination based on some additional information about whether we go forward or not. With that said, any other questions or comments? Then we'll entertain Ms. Plumlee. Thank you Mr. Chair. I move initiation of subdivision regulation text amendment to update article 6-8 for sidewalks and shared use path. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Plumlee, second by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we initiate a subdivision regulation text amendment to update article 6-8 for sidewalks and shared use paths. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, the motion carries, and so we'll look forward for another additional discussion along with some good information. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Duncan, do you have anything else from the commission? Mr. Chair, I wasn't following. Did we take care of the bonds? We did. Yes, we did. Okay, thank you. I do have one other pleasant announcement to make to you all. We hope that this will relieve Tracy from having to go to the lectern quite so much in the coming months. We have hired a new zoning planner, a new planner senior for zoning, and that is Mr. Hal Bailey over here. He's known to you, so he will be taking over that job effective immediately. And I suspect in the coming months, he will be taking Tracy's place here at the lectern and you'll be seeing more of him. So we're glad that Hal has worked into this position, and we're looking forward to working with him on zoning matters. Very good. I'll just be right there. Mr. Duncan, I'm not even asking who, but when do you think we'll have the two positions filled from the Planning Commission? Mr. Chair, the council has scheduled a confirmation hearing for the two nominees for next Thursday. so I will likely be Mr. Forrester and I will likely be leaving the work session in order to come here for the confirmation hearing. Mr. Forrester is being re-nominated and then there are two names, two new names that have been put forward to replace Ms. Richardson and Mr. Cravens who left. Okay, and then we'll probably have to review our committee assignments in light of that, but that will be something we can look forward to down the line. Any other information? And then a reminder that there is, even though we've got a fifth Thursday next week, there is a Planning Commission work session in the Phoenix building. We'll be back to the comprehensive plan discussion at that time. Very good. Any other business to come before the commission? If not, and without objection, meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.