Wild, wild whisper growing in the wind Calling out my name like a long, long string Oh, I miss those days as the years go by Oh, nothing sweeter than summertime And American honey I've gone for so long now I gotta get back to her somehow To American honey Yeah, yeah Ooh, there's a wild, wild whisper Blowing in the wind Calling out my name like a long-lost friend Oh, I miss those days as the years go by Oh, nothing sweeter than summertime An American honey An American honey Come here, baby. You know if you drive me up a wall The way you make good for all the nasty tricks you pull Seems like we're making... I love you so dearly And all the same There's no need to wonder why I need you Please hear me Say you really love me, baby Say you really love me, darling Say, baby Cause I really love you, baby All this love Oh, I really love you, darling And baby, all Say you really love me, baby All this love is waiting for you Cause I really love you, baby My baby Oh, I really love you, darling And baby, oh, baby, oh, baby, oh, baby, sure enough waiting for you. Thank you. The sun was going off the wall, they had to lift their spirits high. For Uncle Sam, motherhood and apple pie. Instead of spending money that they didn't have. In hot spots in the Bronx, they went to hear the kind of jazz. You're hearing funky honky talks. It made you want to jump, shout, shout, knock yourself out. Boogie woogie beat is what I'm talking about. If you had the hippie jibies, you could dance away. To the boogie woogie music the piano man was playing You could jump, jump, shout, shout, knock yourself out Boogie woogie beat is what I'm talking about You could pull a switch or rooty if your bells slow down With the boogie woogie beat of a piano man I'm going to town Ooh, yeah Ooh, yeah It has the kind of rhythm that would fill the hall The flinkin' and the plunkin' drove them up the wall And they would dance and drink their gin And when the buzz, buzz, buzz, they join in So everybody party till the cows came home Cause that's what boogies for And every night that duck would jump And keep on coming back for more Because they made you wanna jump Shout, knock yourself out A boogie woogie beat is what I'm talking about If you had the heebie-jeebies you could dance away To the boogie woogie music, the piano man was playing, you could jump, jump, shout. Knock yourself out, a boogie woogie beat is what I'm talking about. You can pull the switch, a rooney, if you fell, slow down. With the boogie woogie beat, I'm a piano man, I'm going to town. Ooh, yeah. And if you wanna jump, jump, shout, ooh, Rakasaki, wanna jump, jump, shout, Slay off the top of Jimmy Mouth, you wanna jump, jump, shout, Floyd-o'y, Floyd-o'y, through the boogie-woogie music, the piano man was playing, you could jump, shout, I can stay a mouse, boogie-woogie feet is what I'm talking about, you could pull a switcherooly if you're bent or down, To the boogie boogie feet of a peda Thank you. Just snap your fingers while I'm walking Like a dog hanging on your leash I'm in a spin, you know Shaking on a string, you know You make me feel like dancing I wanna dance the night away You make me feel like dancing I wanna dance the night away You make me feel like dancing I feel like dancing, dancing, dance the night away I feel like dancing, dancing I'm quite good to far in the morning I ain't feeling tired, no, no, no, no, no Just hold me tight and leave on the line Cause I don't wanna go home You could have spent on me Right where you want me to be You make me feel like dancing I'm gonna dance the night away You make me feel like dancing I'm gonna dance the night away You make me feel like dancing I feel like dancing, dancing Dance the night away I feel like dancing Dancing Dance the night away I feel like dancing Dancing Dance the night away I feel like dancing Dancing Ah Ah Ah Ah And if you'll let me stay We'll dance our lives away You make me feel like dancing I wanna dance my life away You make me feel like dancing I wanna dance my life away You make me feel like dancing I wanna dance my life away You make me feel like dancing I wanna dance my life quick You make me feel like that In every heart there is a room A sanctuary safe and strong To heal the wounds from lovers past Until a new one comes home I spoke to you in cautious tones The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to call to order the November the 8th Urban County Planning Commission meeting. Welcome to those of you who are in the audience and welcome staff. Thank you again for your support and welcome to my fellow commissioners. With that, we have approval of the minutes and these minutes were approved September the 27th, 2018. but there was a correction that was brought to our attention. So these are adapted, corrected minutes as such. Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, move approval of the corrected minutes for September 27th. Thank you. Okay. It's been moved by Ms. Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve the September 27th, 2018 adopted or corrected minutes. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. That motion carries. Postponements and our withdrawals. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn in your agenda to page 3, item E, plan MJDP 18-00081, Lee's Town Industrial Park, unit 3. This plan was recommended for postponement, and because of this, I need a little bit more time to discuss it with staff. and I think I can get this resolved by the next meeting, which is, I believe, in three weeks on the 29th. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Does anyone in the audience like to speak to this proposal recommendation? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement of Plan MJDP 18-81 Leastown Industrial Park until 11-29-18. Okay, it's been moved, but Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Forrester, that we postpone PLN MJDP 18-81 Leastown Industrial Park Properties Unit 3 until November the 29th. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. That motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of Planning Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I've got a couple here for you. If we turn to page 2, top of page, item B, Plan MJDP 18-75 Willow Oak Shopping Center. Request a one-month postponement to December 13th. What are the reasons? Staff recommended it, and we've got to work out some issues. That's a good reason. I can go along with that. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular postponement request? Anyone on the commission? Okay, we're ready for a motion then. It's Monday. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 18-75 Willow Oak Shopping Center, and I think that's an amended postponement for reasons stated. Okay, and that's for December the 13th. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Karen Mundy and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we postpone PLN MJDP 18-75 Willow Oak Shopping Center until December the 13th. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries. And the next item on your agenda, Major Development 18-76, Blackford Property, Phase 3. Same reasons, we've got to work out some more issues. Request a one-month postponement to December 13th. Anyone in the audience like to address this particular agenda item or the postponement request? Anyone on the commission? Not will entertain a motion then. Then Mr. Forrester. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move for a postponement for PLN-MJDP-18-76 based on the staff's reasons. Okay, and that's also set for December the 13th as well. Okay, Mr. Forrester moves. Ms. Carolyn Plumlee seconds that we postpone PLNMJDP 18-76 Blackford Property, Phase 3, until December the 13th. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries as well. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I had one more that I didn't realize I was postponing, But on page four of your agenda, item I, Major Development Plan 18-00090, Distillery District West, Unit 1, request one month postponement. We've got some pretty major issues to still work out before we present this. anyone in the audience like to address this suggested postponement anyone on the commission if not we'll entertain a motion to postpone and you said one month is that still december the 13th it is okay fine okay so we're ready for a motion to postpone if you're Ms. Plumlee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move postpone a PLN-MJDP 1690 Distillery District West for one month until December 13. Okay, that should be postponed. That's 18. Motion was made by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we postpone PLN-MJDP 18-90 Distillery District West Unit 1 to December 13. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. That motion carries as well. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Wade, any consent agenda that we have? I think we do have a few here. Chairman Wilson, we do have a number of items that are available for the consent agenda today. they are six development plans and I will read through those and make available to the audience the Commission as well as the petitioners to let us know at the end of that reading if they would be interested in having any of those items pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion we will start with development plans were recommended for conditional approval by the subdivision committee. The first item is on page two and it is item D and that is PLN MJDP 18-78 for Lexington Clinic also known as LaBelle subdivision unit one and that includes several parcels on in the 1200 block of South Broadway as well as property on Duncan Avenue, Gibson Avenue and Parkway Drive second item is paid I'm sorry page 3 item F and it is PLN MJ DP 18-82 for the Beaumont farm unit 10 which is part of the B6 P area and this specific development plan is for lot 11 and it's located at 3199 Beaumont Center Circle third item is appears on page four it is item G PLN MJ DP 18-87 for Brookhaven subdivision unit 1f building B this is also an amended development plan for property located at 120 Malibu Drive the next item is also on page four item H PLN MJDP 18-89 for the Bryant property, Lot 1 amended. This is located at 1810 Bryant Road and is for a portion of that property. The next item is on page 5. It is item J, PLN MJDP 18-92 for the Joyce Fields property, Lot E, an amended development plan located at 721 Red Mile Road. And our last item is proposed for re-approval by the Planning Commission. It is on page 6, item I or L? L, excuse me. It is PLN MJDP 17-42 for RML Citation Hillemeyer Interest Limited property located at 2551 Leestown Road. And with that reapproval, there is a change to one condition that was previously approved by the Planning Commission related to landscape buffers and landscaping. Instead of building inspection being required to sign off on those, it's the landscape examiner. The Planning Commission may now consider all of these for conditional approval in one motion, unless there is a member of the public, a petitioner, or someone on the Planning Commission that would wish for one of these items to be pulled for further consideration. Seeing none, Chairman Wilson, I think the Planning Commission can proceed. Thank you. One clarification. On the PLNMJDP 17 days 42, the applicant agrees with the modification of that condition related to, I think the building inspectors He has indicated that he does. Okay. For the record, then the applicant is in agreement with that change. Anything from the commission in terms of pulling any items? If not, we'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Mr. Forrest. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Okay. Mr. Forrester moves that we approve the consent agenda as moved by staff. It's been seconded by Mr. Owens. Any additional discussion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Very good. Thank you. That takes care of that. Without objection, I'd like to move one item around, and that is on the last page, seven, performance bonds and letters of credit. You've got that in your folder. Thank you. Yeah. Here it is. Okay. Okay. Okay, Ms. Dawins. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the releasing call of bonds as shown on the memo Dated 11-8-2018. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Owens, second by Ms. Mundy, that we approve a release of the call of bonds as stated 11-8-18. Any discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. That takes care of that. Okay, we can move to the first item that we have. Back to page one. I think it's under development plan, Zandell Shopping Center, and Greenleaf Motor Lodge. Mr. Martin, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item on your agenda is a development plan. It is on page one, item A. This is Major Development Plan 17-00070, Zandale Shopping Center and Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties. staff has distributed to you an orange revised staff recommendation should be at your seats the property in in question as you can see the development plan is on the screen this is the zandale shopping center This is the original part where we have Panera's and our Fazoli's and the various shops. And in this location, this being Zandell Drive, Nicholasville Road with the frontage here, East Lowry Lane, Walgreens, Old Charlie's, and then here we have the area of amendment that is before you today. This is the athletic facility along with the amended area, which is this retail building in this location. This plan was originally submitted, as you can see, in 2017 and has been postponed numerous times to address the concern over the development of this site relative to the traffic impact. When this plan was originally approved, the building in this location was limited to no fast food drive-thrus. And that was a development plan note that was developed through the review of the development plan and with the concerns with traffic on East Lowry Lane along with the access along East Lowry Lane and the site distance along East Lowry Lane. All these were issues, concerns that existed on this plan. The applicant, and again, it's been postponed several times, and I want to say the applicant has worked with staff in an attempt to address the concerns. And there's been a lot of options discussed, a lot of different aspects looked at in this area to try to address the concerns with the level of traffic and the traffic safety issues that exist in the area. In this particular amendment, the applicant has even gone so far as to lower, reduce the size of the proposed building. And they've gone from 5,000 square feet to a little over 3,000 square feet. And with this proposal, they are stating that they'd restrict this end of the building, the east end of the building, to 1,900 square feet. And that is the fast food portion. Now, of course, what's interesting about this is they're proposing a Smoothie King, which is a juice smoothie operation. It's not a fast food burger joint and that sort of thing. And they have reduced their square footage as an ongoing effort to tailor the site to try to address the concerns that exist. And the reduction in square footage is significant in that it does reduce numerically the projected number of trips from this use, because that's how the ITE manuals work. That's how they're based on square footages, types of businesses. And by reducing the square footage strictly numerically and looking at it from that particular perspective, it does reduce the projected number of trips on this. It also goes to the heart of a – well, and by the way, before I move on, we have distributed to you a breakdown by our transportation planning division section on trips. And we've distributed to tell you, and this gives you a breakdown of various types of similar businesses that the applicant utilized when they looked at the site, including fast food, donut shops, drive-thru bank, pharmacy, those sorts of things. And again, we're not here to really dwell on numbers. Our perspective is stated in this review in that you're kind of looking at a best-case scenario and a worst-case scenario with numbers. And we know that in reality it kind of falls somewhere in between with the way that properties will function and the traffic that will be generated. And that actually leads us to look at what our real concerns are in this area with traffic. And, again, you've heard staff talk about numbers, and quite often we will agree with an applicant the amount of traffic generated isn't going to be a problem due to certain circumstances. It may be that the infrastructure can handle the traffic. It may be that numerically the traffic is not significant. However, in this location, and this is an older development, as everyone is well aware, it's the old, there was a motel there and a Howard Johnson's and the Greenleaf was all in this area many years ago. Oops. Well, that's a close-up, and that'll work. the issue is in fact the site lowry lane and the site itself and the concerns arise from that interesting enough in 2007 when this plan was originally approved and they got this access point and this access point was really intended to be more of a service access point because at one time there was a building located across the entire site and subsequently it was amended back to this which is the athletic facility but this was really intended to be more of a lane for service vehicles and that sort of thing on the site and this access point was further down here so the spacing was better however during the sign-off process and evaluation because one of conditions was resolve the access to lowry lane this got relocated across from this access easement which you all are aware goes all the way over to malibu if you know how to get there because it's offset but and you have trader joe's and the new hotel in the rear that utilize this that was done to line them up because that's safer. You've got full access, full access, and you have people looking at each other and knowing what they're going to do, you can see what they're going to do. That is also relative to the site distance coming from Mickelsville Road, and we're at the top of the hill here, and Lowry as it goes on down into the residential neighborhood and towards Belafonte. Now, Lowry's interesting in that Lowry's a local street, but it functions more as a collector now and that's an aspect of growth that's an aspect of change and that that has happened in this area we've grown we've got more development we've got more commercial use we have uh let's see if we go back and you look here obviously nicholasville road lowry here's west lowry and it runs over to regency and connects people to other uses other collectors and the rest of the network east lowry runs the bella fanny which is a collector that serves that entire residential neighborhood can take you to lands down in two different directions if necessary so east lowry now is carrying considerable more traffic than it than it has in the past and with that and the concern is the site distance because you're looking at the top of the hill it's difficult at other access points to see and to see the traffic safely. That's complicated, interesting enough, by the change in the geometry here. Because this is below grade. And so the traffic utilizing this access or this access, they're sitting down low. Difficult to see if you're on Lowry until they get to the intersection. So there's a cumulative number of factors that impact the safety on this property and is the basis for your staff's concern. This shows you the access points. That's about 750 feet from here to the public street at this location. That's the access road. That is now a restricted access. You all probably remember this. you've heard that for several years there was money on deposit with the traffic engineering to address this intersection nicholasville road and the lowry intersection and what has happened are the bollards the flag bollards to help control that access so we have limited movements here although i know those of you have driven over there have noticed there are people who will drive around those bollards. But these red dots show you existing full unrestricted access points. There's ten of them, eleven access points. Full access points, unrestricted. The distance from here to the public street is good, it meets current standards. This access point no longer meets current standards, but again that was a result of this alignment and trying to make this intersection safer. And again, this was envisioned originally as more of a service access for the development. So again, staff's concern is with Lowry, the site distance, and the numerous full access points along this stretch of the road. We received a memorandum, an email I should say. I'll walk it up to you very quickly. The email is from some neighborhood people, and a gentleman and a woman, a lady, who have been very active in the neighborhood over the years and has interacted with staff in the past. And they've expressed their concern with this plan and with the fast food. And they've done an excellent job, and it's there for you to scan and take a quick look at in describing their experiences and their concerns with the access and the site distance issues in this site. Staff went further and took a look at accident data. and there's been in the last five years 714 accidents around the Zandell Shopping Center. Now, in this area right here, oops, hit the wrong button. I keep doing that. Here we go. In this area right here, there's been 14, 14 accidents. Now, you might on the surface go, well, 14 accidents, 714. Eleven of those accidents have happened in the last year. And that has been since the athletic facility has been up and been operating. And it is obviously successful, and that's a good thing, that people are working out and that that particular facility is doing well. However, again, that's an example of over time, additional traffic, additional use, and it just aggravates the problems that already exist. And these problems are poor sight distance, poor access spacing in the area, and heavy traffic. And with that, staff has reviewed this. They have reviewed the applicant's new plan and their rationale and their attempt. And again, they have attempted to address the safety concerns. Staff is recommending disapproval of this plan and the drive-through. And we're doing so in conjunction with the subdivision committee's disapproval recommendation, not at your last meeting, because they did. Your subdivision committee recommended postponement at the last meeting, and they stated that they'd like to hear the staff's evaluation of this new plan, and that's what we have for you today. At the previous meeting, the subdivision committee had recommended disapproval, and those reasons are on your agenda, and they cite the bad site distance, the traffic, the issues on Lowry Lane. In addition, they cite the concern with, and I'm going to paraphrase, micromanaging this site, micromanaging the use. And that is a very difficult thing to do over time. And the fact is other uses could go in here. Other uses could go in that building. Without a drive-thru, we could have more fast food in there and generate additional traffic, traffic that again would conceivably aggravate the circumstances even more. The staff is very concerned with the traffic safety on Lowry and with that we are recommending disapproval of the plan to you today and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Mullins? Tom, to clarify what you just said, drive-through or not, would you be willing for a fast food restaurant to go in there without a drive-through? No, actually, no. We're very concerned at this point with any use that would go in there that would generate any kind of significant level of traffic. But again, legal uses. I mean, they would have to, once you have a building approved and you have a legal use, that's part of the problem that we all have to live with. The legal use goes in there. Most, you know, anything that goes in there is going to generate some traffic, though. Yes, sir. But some generate more than others. Hours are important. The applicant has stated, and I'm sure they are going to state again in their rationale, that they don't believe the site is suitable for very many uses and think that theirs would be suitable for those reasons oh thank you tom berkeley tom do we know what the traffic count on lowry is no sir that's an excellent question we tried to get that information and they have sensors apparently on both zandell and lowry but they're not active at this time so again we're not sure of any actual current counts and that's why we didn't provide them to you so we we don't know what the traffic is to really make any assessment from that again on the anecdotally based i drive that way all the time and i'm i don't have any problem going through there yes um the 714 accidents i think you said over over what time period that was five years yes for five years okay Okay. And then I think what I heard you say is that they have an existing plan that by reducing the size of the building, which is a new plan that's not, it was just reviewed recently, I guess, Yes. But their trip generation for what is approved right now, as I understand, is very comparable to what this use would generate given the smaller building size? At this point, what they are asking for is a drive-thru. What's approved is no fast food drive-thru, but there's just any kind of general retail would be approved. But in terms of the number of trips that they're approved for right now or that that plan assumes, that is now comparable to what it would be with a fast food drive-thru. Is that correct? There are no assumptions on trips on the current plan per se. What we're operating on now is their proposed plan. That's the only thing we've evaluated. the current approved plan just has a retail building on it okay how many trips does a retail building have i would have to do the analysis i don't have that breakdown what we have is a breakdown based on their comparisons so i i would have to look that up unless our traffic people can rattle that off the top of their heads i unfortunately cannot okay so the the plan that's approved we don't know how many trips that is based on and on this one we do but i i think we got to be able to draw some comparison there if this isn't going to generate any more traffic than what's approved then what But where is the rub, I guess? Yes, sir. I understand your question. And I would have to direct that to our transportation people to do the math. Again, I don't have the manual with me. It's a square footage calculation, as you know, based on the use. That will give you an estimated trip. And then the other thing, you're saying that you're going with subdivision committee's previous recommendation of disapproval of the plan. But that's a different plan than what we have in front of us right now. So I don't think subdivision disapproved this particular plan, right? Because we just saw it last Thursday. Actually, I will grant you they postponed this plan. Because we were going to give you all time to meet. Yes, sir. Did you all get to meet? Yes, sir. With the applicant? Oh, with the applicant. No, sir. We met internally. So did they, I came away from our meeting the other day that y'all were all going to get together. And schedules did not permit. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. Tom, the original development plan on this said no fast food, correct? No fast food drive-thru. Drive-thru. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so we changed this to a Smoothie King, and when the Smoothie King melts, can another drive-thru come in, and what happens at that point? It's staff opinion that you could attempt to control that sort of thing, but it would be very difficult, that level of management, that level of restriction. So we believe once you have a drive-thru, you're going to have a drive-thru at that location. and another restaurant could go in there with the drive-thru. The Smoothie King doesn't exist in the manuals because it's such a specific. But I think if you look at this breakdown, our transportation people compared it to a coffee shop. You substitute juice for coffee, and that could be a similar generator. Coffee shops tend to generate a little more than actual fast food drive-thrus. But again, the original concern arose out of the traffic that fast food drive-thrus generate and the impact on the street system. Any other questions from the commissioners for Mr. Martin? let me ask Mr. Emmons do you have any additional information to on the traffic thing They're working on the math. Thank you. For the record, Jimmy Emmons with our transportation planning section. to answer your question to kind of compare apples and oranges. If you were looking at a 5,000 square foot building that was completely general retail, dress shops and stuff like that, you would have about 185 trips in a typical day versus the building that's proposed at about 4,000 square feet, half of it being a fast food restaurant and half of it being retail. You're looking at about 967 trips in a day, so roughly about five times as much traffic. That's an idea of how much more traffic is generated by a fast food restaurant than a general retail. All of those things are based on averages and studies that are in the ITE manual, so you kind of have to look at it in particular use on that. The point that we were trying to make in the memo that I wrote is that we, rather than talking about the particular numbers on this building, I standardized it to the rates that are there, that those are in the ITE manual so that you can kind of look at how much traffic is generated by the particular uses that could be in front of you. If you have any other questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Go ahead. The count you referred to for retail, does that include retail with drive-thrus? No, that would just be a general retail shop. Okay, but see, they're approved right now for a drive-thru, period. So are you still comparing apples to apples if you're using a trip generation that does not include drive-thru? You did compare bank pharmacy. And we've got all of the different rates comparison for different uses that could go in there. For instance, if you look at a bank with a drive-thru, they produce about in the morning, or let's go with the evening, they produce about 20 trips during the peak hour versus a fast food, which produces about 30 trips during the peak hour. You've got different kinds of rates in there. The bigger part is that fast food restaurants with drive-thrus do produce more traffic. than fast food restaurants without. Depending on the type of restaurant that it is, there are different types of generators that could occur. It's the same with retail. You know, if you're looking at general retail, really depending on what they're selling, there's a very wide variety in the type of traffic that's generated in those. So it all comes down to what you're doing. The applicants had proposed a situation that saying that with the 5,000 square foot building, that if it were all restaurants, it would be this, and that what they're proposing would be half restaurant and half a very low traffic generator, and saying that it would be equal. They also compared that only looking at the evening rush hour, whenever we know that fast food restaurants are typically busiest in the morning rush hours. My point was to get the Planning Commission, whether you agree with the staff's analysis or not, is that we wanted to make sure that you had the information available to you in your decision-making process so that you could consider these things. Okay, any other questions for Mr. Edmonds? Okay, thank you. We'll go to the applicant. Good afternoon. Um, Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicant. I want to say at a baseline, a lot of the facts that Tom has presented. We're not necessarily in disagreement with what we are in disagreement with is the overall conclusion and what the result of our new plan would bring to this site. So, there we go. So some of the reasons we think that the new plan should be approved is because it's a better plan over what's the existing plan on what we could do today. The plan we have today, I could go down and I could pull a permit and we could build what is there but the plan due to the meetings with the staff and meetings with Casey and engineering the plan we have we're presenting to you today is it just a better plan than the existing one we have attempted to enhance both pedestrian and traffic safety over what's on the existing plan as Tom said we're trying to mitigate and minimize the traffic count on the site to help bring some of those concerns down in the apples to apples I was not Unfortunately, I was not provided a copy of the memo that you received in advance, but it's based upon the ITE manual. I'm sure it's factually accurate, but I will go through some of the distinctions on that item. I know at the original subcommittee hearing, there was an issue about this being a micromanaging. This was considered a, quote, possibly a designer zoning. We wanted to eliminate that, So we have attempted to revise the drive-through development plan restriction, modified that, brought a reasonable modification to essentially eliminate some of those concerns about micromanaging only a Smoothie King can go here. We met with Tracy Jones with legal. We agree that it is a concern, so we have attempted to modify that issue. And then lastly, you're going to see that the site overall is just an unfavorable site for restaurants in fast food restaurants my client happens to be a planet fitness franchisee and a smoothie king franchisee they have opened up these symbiotic operations in other locations they have found to be very successful but honestly if my client were to come to me to buy this particular piece of property for a quote fast food restaurant i would consider their business acumen just because of some some of the sites, from my experience, representing developers on developments across this part of the country. So the first thing is, I don't know, how do I zoom this in? Am I able to zoom this in? Nope, can't zoom in here. But fortunately, I can kind of read myself. Let me sit here. Is it the red button for the pointer? I don't want to turn it on. Okay, perfect. So some of the things that I want to talk about, this is the current development plan. And I apologize, I should have blown up this section a little bit bigger so you guys will be able to see better. But currently here is the eastern access point. This down here is the western access point. Currently we can build a fast food, I mean not fast food, we can build a 5,000 square foot building. But the only restriction is the drive-thru may not be utilized for a fast food restaurant. So I'm not limited to retail. I could put in a Panera. I could put in a bank. I could put in, split this up, put in a wing zone, a Domino's operation. As long as there's not a window, I could put in fast food. I could put in all sorts of uses in this building. That's a pretty large building. You'll see here, this is the existing drive-through right here. So if you come up Lowry, you'll take a left, and then about 10 feet, you've got to take a right right into the drive-through. There's also currently a pedestrian walk, so when you come in on Lowry, hopefully there's nobody in the pedestrian walk. Because if so, then you've got to stop, potentially backing up traffic. the current drive-through lane is a five stack and as you see once again it could pop out here now the reason you know underneath the rules five stack works especially when you factor in you can't have you know fast food type restaurant here but we can put a bank in and then lastly there's a parking space right here so on our development new revised development plan what we've done to try to mitigate the issues that this particular site has is we have the eastern access point still here and the western one is still here those are there we talked with traffic engineering the staff had recommended possibly closing this it after discussions it was determined that enough trucks and and service vehicles use this service road to that it would not be we should not close it and i will tell you i grew up in this area i've been going to zandale i was a bag boy at the regency kroger during high school so i know this area very well um and so this you know these roads i've never used this back access myself but it goes all the way through down to zandale What we've also done is to take care of this issue right here. As you'll see now when you come in, rather than being about 10 feet, there's about 150 feet and you go into our parking lot. We eliminated this parking space right here so that cars that are pulling out here would have more site view. And then now you come onto the lot to go into the drive-thru lane, which is now an 8-stack instead of a 5-stack. We've also added in a race crosswalk here. So now instead of people accessing here now there's sidewalk crosswalks, crosswalks all the way to the Planet Fitness. So you have crosswalks now will access from the Planet Fitness all the way to Lowry Road if you so chose. So we did include that. Originally we're going to try to put a double lane here. We have eliminated one of the lanes to assist with some more greenscaping to comply with the subdivision regulations. Here what we've done, you can't see is we have modified this to have a left turn only. We've pushed out this curb cut with the ideas when the traffic comes in to naturally encourage people to go back this direction, to come to this western road instead of the eastern road to eliminate some of the traffic that would possibly come out here. As you know, we can only do so much to discourage behavior. I will say, though, thanks to Casey and being on the BOA and doing this process, I do use more crosswalks than I used to. I used to be a big-time jadewalker. So hopefully people will use these crosswalks to access. us. Now one of the things we did change is now you'll see the original modern the original development plan said drive-through is restricted to non-food uses. So once again we could put a fast food restaurant in this building we just couldn't have a drive-through. So what we've done is we have attempted to modify that and say fast food user with the drive-through facility shall be limited to a space a unit with a maximum of 1900 square feet. So if the Smoothie King melts, the only thing that could go in there if another fast food were to go in there would be limited to the 1900 square feet. We propose the other 2000 square feet be retail. That's our proposal. So once again, we've tried to minimize any increase of the traffic on Lowry Lane between the plan we could do today and the plan that we're asking for. Now here, what I've listed here is a number of, this is based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers, you know, the trip generation. Now, I do admit this was only the PM. You have to bear with me here because my eyes aren't that good anymore. And I apologize once again to you guys. I can't see it at all. Yeah, I know. I'm so sorry. So what I'll do is I'm going to kind of read some of these numbers out to you. So, for example, we could put in a fast casual restaurant in this location. If the fast casual, such as a Chipotle's or a Five Guys or a Nuke's or a Panera, were to go in there, no window, it would be we come up with 70 trips per hour during the peak hours. If we were to put a high-quality restaurant such as the Malone's, it would be 39 trips per hour during the peak. Fast food restaurants without a window, which we can't put in there. It says that McDonald's would generate 141, Burger King and Arby's. Now, McDonald's is probably low having been through a McDonald's drive-thru. I mean, a McDonald's establishment, but you could put that number in there. with the drive-through window it rises 163 trips per hour and then retail it'd be 20 trips per hour so what we could do right now without the drive-through and without probably triggering any issue with building to get a permit is I could put in we could build a five thousand square foot building we could put a five guys we could put in a nukes and we would generate about a little over 70 trips per peak hour with the new building proposal of 3900 square feet with the fast food with the fast food with the drive through window. That would be 62 trips per hour and with retail of the other 2000 square feet that would be 7.62 trips per hour. So technically with our new proposal, we would be at 69.69 trips per hour versus our current plan, which would allow for up to 70.65 trips per hour. We would actually go down almost one trip per hour on the current development plan that we're proposing versus the current one. Oops. Now, I am going to talk about Smoothie King for a second, even though we're not focusing just on Smoothie Kings. This is from my client. I've talked to them. Like I said, they are an affiliate of the Smoothie King franchisee. And that's the reason we're looking to put a Smoothie King in. Based upon my owner's affiliates location in Fairfield, Ohio, they were during peak hours, and usually Smoothie King gets 12 to 5, and 7 to 9 is usually when they see the most traffic. People during the day working out, people after school getting smoothie, and then the post-workout. Usually during their high periods, they get 30 to 40 cars per hour. Their menu is limited to smoothies and prepackaged retail snacks. They don't serve hot food, they don't serve meals. Now the closest Smoothie King location to Lexington is currently in the Louisville and Cincinnati markets. I just wanted to show that to you that even though other fast foods could possibly come in behind us, our particular user would have a low impact based upon their information. Now while this site wouldn't even if assuming that this site would no longer be a Smoothie King, some of the reasons why a typical restaurant wouldn't come into the site. Number one they have minimal building requirements which 1900 feet is generally not going to meet. They have minimal land area requirements where the land area is under half an acre we wouldn't meet that. They like standalone buildings. They like to be located or visibly from the arterial road and intersections and they like to have pylon signs. They like to have a sign somewhere. We did pull some. I had Chad Volkert over at NAI Isaac pull some typical restaurants in our area. So we've got an Arby's, a Bojangles, a Burger King, Culver's, Dairy Queen, Fazoli's, Hardee's, KFC, McDonald's, Popeye's, Taco Bell, Starbucks, Steak and Shake and Wendy's. Just some typical what we could easily see people determine defining as fast food. Normally all of these, the building size the only three that would like that would take a building under 19 under 1900 square feet would be an Arby's a Taco Bell or Starbucks but once again all three of those want more acreage so the only one that would actually fit within the requirements of being below a half an acre and being below 1900 square feet is a Taco Bell and I find it hard to believe the Taco bell across the street is going to close down and move to our our beautiful location which brings us to our location so here's our site right here the land is about a third of an acre we are about 490 feet from the intersection so once again if you look go down Nicosville Road there's a reason all the restaurants are lined up right here because they all want to have visibility because they want people rubbernecking, getting hungry and pulling in. They don't want people to say, well, I really want to go find a Starbucks picked away back in the back behind this Walgreens here. So that's, I mean, just practically speaking, they all want to be on here. Furthermore, we have one small pylon sign. That's all we're allowed to put on this Harrisburg Road. So if you're coming north, by the time you will see our sign, you'll already have passed Lowry. If you want to get a smoothie can you have to go down at Zandell and come back through. Once again the land area here, it's a little bit below grade. So I'm going to show you some photos on some of these issues. Number one, here's our site. There's the eastern access points over here. I apologize for not getting that in the photo. Here's the western location. Here's the Road to Legion to Trader Joe's. you'll see here this is the current road which was which the access road which will stay there is a hill which you will see here but if you're sitting at the top this hill at this intersection you can see down both ways there's a little bit more visibility difficulties if you're coming up East Lowry coming towards Nicholsville Road but the car sitting in this intersection can see that traffic oncoming. The site is a little bit below below road grade here but if you see right here this is where we can currently put our drive-through lane if we were to underneath the current development plan. So we come in and we take a shot right here we've moved it all the way down the service road and one thing I also want to flip back if You'll see here mostly this service road here. It goes this direction. So there are multiple points of entry, but most of this traffic right now is going to the Walgreens and going to the fitness operation and the people cutting down the Walgreens to get to this service road. There's our sign. So you see there we can put our little bitty baby sign right there underneath the plan of fitness. Now if you're coming up Nicholsville Road, you'll see here our building you won't even be able to see it Here's across the street from where the Taco Bell location is You see the Walgreens but you see a little bit of the gym totally block our view From the intersection of West Lowry looking towards east Nicholsville Road, once again the Walgreens is there, you won't be able to see us Here's coming down Nicholsville Road so if you're coming this direction auto zone tree in the way here wall grange you can sort of see the plan of the fitness you'll probably see a little bit of the building once it goes up as it'll be about here this high get on to Lowry you'll be able to see the building a little bit once again you're not gonna be able to see it so and these are sort of proposed findings that I'd like you to discuss one is that the proposed modification of the restricted note related to fast food use with the drive-through reduces the projected vehicular trips generated from the proposed use thereby being comparable in scope to the restrictive note in the existing development plan the proposed used and allowed uses under the existing development plan have projected vehicular generation traffic that are comparable and therefore the proposed use would not cause additional traffic on Lowry Lane the proposed development plan does not create any new issues with the site distance on Lowry Lane and it alleviate some concerns by discouraging use of the easternmost access point to lower lane development plan is better than a built plan has a better pedestrian traffic safety perspective or the existing plan by including pedestrian walkways controlling internal traffic movement and relocating drive-through lane and finally the proposed available plan does not regulate any specific business so that's kind of our presentation on why the current plan we are requesting is is better doesn't try to attract any more traffic than we currently have on Lowry Lane or we could do under our current plan and it's an overall superior safer plan have any questions for the Mr. Owens. Thank you. Mr. Gross, it sounds like your applicant has had the Planet Fitness and Smoothie Kings together. Probably it sounds like maybe in-house. Has he ever had them in separate buildings? Yes. Like this one would be proposed to you? He does. Actually, the Fairfield, Ohio project, the Smoothie King is essentially in the parking lot of the gym. Do you have any information as to Planet Fitness patrons being patrons of Smoothie King as well? Well, the. Or, you know, I'm curious. Is it going to be all outside traffic or are they already going to be there? We submitted a letter from my client, and my client projects about 70% of its sales will be from the drive-thru. And about 30% will be from walk-in. Thank you. Just as a point of clarification, that 70% could be people that are already at the Planet Fitness. Correct. Yeah, the reason this works is because there are a lot of people. We do not have necessarily a breakdown of how many people from the gym come to the Smoothie King. However, I will say that the Smoothie King is more than the Jamba Juice that was approved on the earlier development plan. Smoothie Kings. what they focus on is supplements they put in their smoothies. So if you want to put in your extra protein, your extra zinc, because you're bodybuilding, you're doing other things, those are available at the Smoothie King versus other drink-type restaurants. So that's a very symbiotic relationship and why my client thinks this would be a great location for their business. Any other questions? Just one for clarification. As I understood it, because I'm not on the subdivision committee, have you all met with the staff on the proposals? Have you all had a chance to meet with the staff? We have. We have met. Well, I've only been brought in on this project in the last, I don't know, eight months since the spring. I do know that they had some initial meetings after I was brought in. I have had several meetings with staff. on the subdivision committee did recommend we meet. I sent an email on Monday with sort of an argument asking if the staff was available to meet. It appears that they were not available to meet. But my understanding is staff isn't necessarily opposed to our development plan. It's that they're opposed to the drive-thru. And I'm not sure how you get around if one party wants a drive-thru and the second party does not. I don't want to speak for staff, but that's my understanding because that's a major driver's the drive-through. I don't know how you compromise at that point. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Does anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular plan, either for or against? Yes, ma'am, please. No, no, you have to go because the microphones are set up to record your comments. My name is Barbara Grunell. I'm a neighbor. I live about half a block from Lowry Lane on Delwood Drive. I was one of the two people that prepared that just very casual traffic analysis, whatever you call that. We did it at the time of day that it is heaviest traffic going into Planet Fitness, also into Trader Joe's. And it's very heavy. And the place where the driveways cross, it's a dangerous spot. And the eastern entry that you were just talking about has off-street parking. and it's not true that when you're exiting that eastern driveway that you can see what's coming on Lowry Lane. It's just not possible. If you eliminate the on-street parking, there's the little apartment building across the street, and that's their only parking, I believe. So that, to me, that would not be a good solution. I agree with everything that Tom, I don't know Tom's name, was saying about the analysis of the transportation in that area. And I have nothing against Smoothie King, but I feel that the traffic patterns now are at their max if you're talking about safety. That's really all I have to say. Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, then we go back to the rebuttal to the petitioner first, the applicant. Do you have any additional comments? At this time, I don't think to add to her testimony. Okay. Staff? okay I'll just add that the staff's concern is the staff's concern is not just about the existing application but we always are concerned about the future and that means changes of use that don't come back to the Planning Commission so a change of use from and mr. gross mentioned coffee shops or other fast food restaurants that wouldn't need to come back to the Planning Commission for further assessment they would just go get a occupancy permit from the division of building inspection and move forward and that traffic pattern can be exacerbated by those changes of use so if we open the door for a fast food restaurant with the drive-through that means any fast food restaurant with the drive-through. So that's our heating that once you open that door there's no bringing the horses back in the barn. Okay I see we have a transportation yes ma'am. Yes Casey with traffic engineering. Y'all were talking so much traffic I couldn't hold myself back I had to come. I guess I just wanted to kind of have the same clarification that Tracy had. There was a lot of conversation about the trips generated with just a commercial use versus a fast food use. We've met with the applicant multiple times. Maybe not all planning and all of us in the same room, but traffic has met with the applicant multiple times and actually feels confident with the information they provided us regarding the trips generated with the Smoothie King based on the size of the building. So from a traffic standpoint, just looking at the Smoothie King and the drive-thru, that's not the traffic concerns. It's more the concerns of we have an existing roadway and geometry and site distance and to the potential to have a drive-thru there and then it change use and become a McDonald's. that's an extreme case but that's where the the staff had the concerns with the drive-thru was basically maybe not specifically with the smoothie king use but once the drive-thru is in place as a fast food use where do we basically distinguish fast food use that was the that was the traffic's concerns and account of our viewpoint when we reviewed the plan any questions for Casey thank you okay Commission members there's nothing else from the audience what we'll do is yes sir come on on that if I may just respond real quickly to Tracy and Casey if you indulge me for a second I'm gonna put this up on. Let's see if you can zoom out a little bit. I don't know if this is going to work. Well, let's start here. If you see here... No, unfortunately. Oh, pull it up a little bit. Well, does the commission mind if I walk up to you with this? No. Okay. I mean, you can pass it around or whatever. Even then, I'll bring my leaders with me. It's still pretty small. Do you have the microphone? Yeah, you can take the mic with you. That's okay. Okay. Well, you can walk, but you can't say anything. Here's your mic. So, and once again, I apologize. I'll let you guys pass this along. But if you look here, we based our trips not on necessarily just the Smoothie King. The Smoothie King, I think, is, like I said, the 30 to 40 is what my client tells me that they get in their Fairfield, Ohio. But what we did is we looked at the fast food restaurant with the window and without a window. And if you look here, a fast food restaurant with the window that's only 1,900 square feet generates 62 trips. A fast casual restaurant with 5,000 square feet generates 70 trips. So I realize that they're concerned about traffic, but the traffic, the site plan is the site plan. The access roads are the access roads. What we can do today is the same as what we could do tomorrow if you approve this new plan. The only difference being is there is a drive-thru window, which appears to be an emotional trigger more than a factual trigger on what it can generate based upon the size limitation of the user for that fast food. Because once again, it's only 1,900 square feet. Okay. Since I gave Mr. Gross one other chance to staff, you have the last word if you want. If not, Mr. Martin, do you have anything? I'm fighting a very strong urge to speak, only in regard that since you've heard the same numbers once again about generation, Staff would just reiterate, you have difficult, problematic, dangerous access. You have dangerous site distance. It is a dangerous area for traffic, and that is our concern, regardless of trips generated. generated it is currently not a safe stretch of roadway so again i tried to make that point earlier regardless of numbers we've got a difficult and dangerous area here on lowry lane thank you what i'm going to do now is close this hearing to the public and bring it back to the commission but the commission can ask anyone a question if they have a desire to do so so It's now at the commission level to either ask any questions of the applicant, ask questions of the staff, or anyone else. Okay, Ms. Mundy, I'm sorry. And this is for staff. Are you comfortable, in light of Tom's comments just now, and my, I guess, feelings about the congestion in the area of where the dumpster is? it's interesting that you should bring that up and they're a sign off no we've never been totally comfortable but that is something that'll be worked out with those providers because you're going to have to cross the drive-through lane then you've got to cross that basically what i would call a truck entrance to get to the you know and i'm by that site all the time and yes yes ma'am and you are correct and they are a sign off on this plan and that that is a concern okay thank you mr allant thank you mr. chair two things one directly to this question for the staff we're talking about what I'm hearing a 1900 square foot smoothie King plus a retail restaurant as well. This possible drive-through, is it limited to only 1,900 square feet? We're talking about what happens if Smoothie King melts. No pun intended. Yes, no pun intended. But if something happens, somebody else wants to come in, do they have access to come in without coming to the Planning Commission and access more of that building than just the 1,900 square feet? Yes, sir. Conceivably they could, yes. That's part of our concerns. There's a different user coming in that would generate. A different user, but they can come back and access more of that building than just what is being proposed as 1,900 square feet for the Smoothie King? I would think so, yes, sir. They could get a remodeling permit. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? Oh, I'm sorry. One other thing. I mean, this is, I hate to say it, kind of unrelated. In subdivision the other day, internal access in another part of this development apparently had been closed off inadvertently or something. Can we make sure that gets opened up however way that needs to happen? Yes, sir. We have discussed that very briefly with our compliance people. It appears that an internal access has been blocked by one of the businesses. But it's going to be opened back up. We are going to address it to compliance, yes, sir. Thank you. And Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. I wish to thank the neighborhood spoke. I think that people who live within a neighborhood certainly have valid opinions on the type of development they would like to see in their neighborhood. And that being said, I have a motion when you're ready. Okay, we've got two other people who'd like to speak. Mr. Berkley? I saw you shaking your head about the question about the 1900 square feet. Can it be expanded? Do you care to talk about that a little bit more? Because that isn't the way I understood it. What you've represented to us is a 1900 square foot space. That's correct. Currently what we're putting down is a note restriction to where fast food fast food users with the drive-thru window cannot be larger than 1900 square feet. I do not believe that you could go in and go beyond that 19. So if the Smoothie King were to shut down, someone else that would come in would not be able to then utilize more than 1900 square feet without being a violation of the restriction and to be prone to zoning code violation and enforcement. Do you all agree with that? I believe so. I may have misunderstood the original question, but, again, that building can be expanded. One use could go in there. Walls can come down. Remodeling permits can be issued. Yes, there could be a restriction, I believe, as stated on that. It would be up to compliance, which hopefully would be done. but yeah if I understand you correctly you're limited with the retail that would consider this location based on that's really what you said as well most I think not read not retail sorry the commercial side correct some of this is while we recognize our issues with this site some at some point some practicality needs to come in to where this side is limited viability for other restaurants given the fact that it's only 1900 square feet that it's not a standalone building that it's back off a major arterial road given those factors the likelihood of another restaurant really aggressively trying to come into this site is low and that was the point I was trying to make is some of the practicality. And are there any kind of legal restrictions that you can suggest that might be more restrictive to so that it could come back around to be seen by planning or something like that? It sounds like, you know, I've talked with legal and they did not think that we should get into specific users. Um, it had, they had an issue that that would not may not be legal. The legal department thought it may not be legal so what I've tried to do is propose a restriction restriction on the plan itself which is clear when you look at the building it says note number 12 and you look at it and it puts this restriction to put everyone on notice so if for some reason somebody wanted to come back and expand that space they'd have to be back in front of you to have them the development plan amended Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Just one more. So that's a significant concern of staff. It's just the next, in the event that we melt, the next, whomever might take that space again, as I understand it, that's a significant concern as well as the existing concern. but that's an equal concern that is a concern yes sir thank you miss plumley thank you mr chair uh we've really hashed a lot of traffic issues here geometry and site distance and so forth and for a drive-through in this area it just doesn't sound like a very rosy picture for that reason i am I'm going to move to support the staff for disapproval for PLN, MJDP 1770, Zandale Shopping Center, and Greenleaf Lodge Properties, for the four reasons, the findings of the first disapproval, as suggested by Tom in his presentation. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Carolyn Plumlee has made the motion. Is there a second? Okay, there's a second by Ms. Karen Mundy that we support the staff's recommendation for disapproval. That is PLN MJDP 17-70, Zandale Shopping Center, and Greenleaf Motor for the four conditions or reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Yes. Yes, sir. What is it? i just want to clarify miss plumley you made a comment that that this is not appropriate for a drive-through they're already approved for a drive-through the plan that is approved right now is approved for a drive-through i stand corrected but i still my motion stands for the roof the same reason of staff's disapproval with the four findings Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, let me clarify because every time we have a negative motion, if you are for the motion is in favor of the staff's recommendation for disapproval, for those people who are believing in the staff's recommendation, you would vote yes. If you don't and you want to support the applicant, you vote no. Is that okay? Okay, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay. Okay. Well, according to parliamentary law, the motion fails. There's nothing we can do about that. That's it. Sorry. This stays the game. Well, the motion fails, but that means it's approved then. No, no. The motion fails. You've got a 4-4 vote. So what one could do is flip the essence of the motion, but you're still going to wind up with a 4-4 vote. It doesn't matter which way you go. So you can't say that it's approved. You can't say that it's disapproved. You can't do anything at this stage. Well, we can't leave this in a quandary either. We have to because we have no option unless someone wants to change the vote. Is that right? Who's our legal folks here? Yeah, it was easy. They have an approved plan for the property, so you're going to end up defaulting to the plan that's been approved until they get another one approved. Otherwise, they could file another plan and go through the process again. That's right. Okay. Are you clear, Mr. Gross, about that? Okay. Thank you. That's it for this particular one. Let's move on. I think the next one is on page five . . . . What are you looking for? Never mind. I found it. Good afternoon. I believe Denise handed out in the package. We have a green sheet that we're going to look at. This is for Covenant Church Incorporated, Milk and Honey, MJDP 18-69. this plan was previously approved for the daycare which was located in this area they asked for an addition to the back of the daycare plus a pavilion to be added here in the parking area since they were approved they came they had gone to the board of adjustments and asked for a conditional use for a church that was approved in June of this year so just recently they came back before our subdivision committee meeting and asked for a continued discussion because they wanted to add the church to this development plan which this is the church right here on the property this is still your main entrance in Alpha Old Todd's Road come into a parking lot we have the daycare and now we have the church that they're proposing on this property with this you can see on the back side of the list of conditions we came up with revised conditions for this meeting we have the typical sign-offs as we had before we had a couple other conditions addition of VUA screening we asked for them to correct the purpose of amendment note we also there was a note number 15 let's go 14 addition of Board of Adjustment approval date and case number since they went to the Board of Adjustment for this church we want to make sure we have that information on the plan condition number 15 delete note number 10 the way that note reads is improvements to Old Todd's Road shall be determined at the time the property is redeveloped with the division of planning we believe that with this revision of adding the church on the property this now constitutes this to be a redevelopment of the property so with that we asked for the note we believe that the improvements need to be made if you look at note number 13 the applicant shall construct the required street improvements on old tods road to the approval of the division of engineering and traffic engineering the improvements are curb and gutter because currently the city has a project going on down old tods road to put in sidewalks so they would just have to complete with the curb and gutter on old tods road with that i open it to you all if you have any questions Any questions for Ms. Gall? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Hi, my name is Mary Dommigan, and I'm the applicant, and I'm representing both the church and Mr. Pittard here. about up until about four years ago a church already existed on this property where the the milk and honey daycare is right now so and then in addition to that the church is also going to be operating at a completely different time as the daycare so i believe the the daycare operates monday through friday until 6 p.m the church is only going to be active on wednesday evenings starting at 7 p.m. and then on Sundays so their hours of operation are at a completely different time than then than the daycare yep so also furthermore I know that there's been talk about old Todd's Road and some of the discussion has been about the the access entrance road and I don't believe that with them operating at separate times that it would cause any additional flow you know what i mean in fact the church the amount of sanctuary seats that is proposed is 144 on average right now they're receiving between 55 to 70 church attendees when they do have have church as well so there would not be any increase in traffic even during you know if you were to you know just take into account that they're happening at separate times so therefore our request is to leave the access road the way that it is currently and then as a result to that the old todd's road improvements would take place as they were a couple weeks back before the the condition was added to our agenda let's see here the the approved board of adjustments was for conditional use i believe back in june that abcapista did before i became involved for religious purposes and as i stated a church did occupy where the daycare is now up to four years ago so So, and I believe the parking, you know, we've got parking met. We've got, you know, I met with Casey, or I spoke to Casey, Scott, and also Thomas Clements about, you know, sidewalks, about parking. So, I think, unless you all have any questions. Yes, I have. Well, I'll ask my colleagues, do you all have any questions? Okay, Ms. Mundy, then. Will you be doing any special events at this venue, like weddings, carnivals, vacation Bible school, where you would have more traffic? Hang on just a second. Sporadically, not that much. Okay. Any other questions? Let me just be clear about this. The staff has recommended approval, but the condition that we're struggling with is number 13, and that is it says the applicant shall construct the required improvements on Old Todd's Road. You all are saying you all don't want to do that. Is that the bottom line? there was there was been discussion going back and forth about that like up until about a week ago it was to our understanding that um we were just going to take the sidewalks to the right of way of the road and then just cut off and then whenever you all made the improvements to old todd's road we were going to do it that way and then i think about a week ago we were notified differently um And so I guess what our argument on it is if we left Old Todd's or if we left the access road as it is currently, the way that it was before I drew this up that way, as a result of there not being any improvements, therefore we would just take the sidewalks to the right-of-way as it was two weeks ago and then just leave that as is. I mean, it's. Okay, let me go back and cut to the chase here. just a little bit. No, that's okay. I just want to be clear about what it is we're dealing with here. In other words, 13, the applicant shall construct the required improvements of OTAG. That's what you're objecting to? Yes, that'd be the church. Okay. Okay. Now, that was the addition of the VUA screening for the parking area in the front. That was something that I think was discussed. I'll let him take over on this part. Sure will. Hi, I'm Kent Pitter with Milk and Honey Preschool, the daycare. So, yes, to answer your question is the road improvements. That's the key. That's pretty serious, yes. Okay. We're going to be using the same driveway. It's going to be a shared driveway. We're not going to be impacting Todd's Road beyond what we're already doing right now. So to have to do anything to the street, what the church is doing is well back off of the road anyway. Could you pull your microphone up to you? We're working with a shared drive. Okay. to get involved with Old Todd's Road improvement. We're not even getting, the property's not even being improved to the street. We're not, what's the word I'm looking for here? We're not even making contact with Old Todd's Road with this improvement. The driveway is already there. and then the VUA screening on 10 and on the new 10. That parking is not involved with the addition of the church at all and that parking arrangement's been approved with the addition of the building. In other words, that parking arrangement's been going on forever and it's not being modified at all for the church. So just leaving that parking area right in front of the building, leaving it alone, and not impacting Otod's Road. Does that answer your question, sir? Okay, now just for clarification, what I'm hearing you say now is that you've got concerns with two. You've got concerns with 10 and 13. I mean, that's the bottom line. Right. Okay. Right. I would love to not take up any more parking right there in front of the building. We've got buses that come in every day. Okay. School buses, drop off children, pick up children. So adding islands to that area would make it a little more challenging for those buses to motivate around the parking lot. and and again also that's already been approved with the last amendment we made adding the 2,000 square foot add-on in the pavilion no nothing's changed there so just to clarify that was a condition of the last plan as well you you need to bring the parking lot up to standards which includes the VUA screening and that's an article 18 requirement so if you don't feel like you can meet that you'll need to ask for a variance to the Board of Adjustment and those under special circumstances you would ask to vary those requirements all right I may have misunderstood the last time around the last time I understood was the rear of the parking we had center parking where says now notice all checked off with no parking well so on the first page of the green sheet it was previously conditioned 12 the addition of all vua screening from the previous development plan including parking area in front of building so that was a condition you agreed to previously and it's one that did not get corrected on the face of the development plan Okay, so the new parking lot needs to also meet Article 18 requirements, which was a condition of the Board of Adjustment as well. Okay, so is number 10 then talking about the church parking lot? Yes, at this time. Okay, well then, all right, I misunderstood. I thought we were talking. Okay, I misunderstood then. I'm not worried about 10 at all. It's really just the improvements of the road. Okay, any other comments? Okay, anyone else in the audience like to speak to this particular plan? Let me go back to the staff and see. Tom wants to clarify something as well. For the Planning Commission's benefit as well as the applicant's benefit, we need to be very clear. This is a continued discussion. now the continued discussion purpose is because they're adding a church in a parking lot to their development plan so we're talking about both the daycare and the church here because it's a continued discussion and it's the entire plan and of course as tracy explained the vua is an article 18 requirement they have to meet ordinance requirements or go to the board for relief the old tods road improvements are on the table once again because this is a continued discussion because they're bringing the church use back onto this development plan or onto not back on but on they're bringing the plan back to you adding this development and so that is why we want to discuss street improvements, which we always want to discuss on development. They were deferred on the daycare pending any future redevelopment of this large piece of property. Well, now they're bringing in more development on this property. That's changed the situation and changed our review and analysis of the situation. There is a public project to put sidewalks along this frontage because there is a perceived need for sidewalks because of pedestrian traffic and safety in the area. That was discussed quite a bit back originally a few years ago, you may recall. So with that, we believe this is an appropriate time to complement that public project with the standard road improvements to Old Todd's Road. And that's why we have that condition on there. And that condition came about with discussions with traffic engineering as well, because they are very concerned about those improvements. and I just want to be sure everybody was clear about why we're here today and what what we're talking about I can sometimes be a little confusing in the process and with continued discussions and that sort of thing though okay Casey you have anything else to add i can kind of tell you a little bit about the i met with the division of engineering regarding the project that they are working on so the division of engineering is currently working on a project to provide sidewalks and it encompasses the whole frontage of this property and kind of extends on both sides a little typically when a developer comes through and we ask the developer to do half section improvements that's road widening curb cover curb gutter and sidewalk so in this situation the applicant would not be responsible for the sidewalk the engineering project would take care of that the engineering project is going to compensate for the road widening which will actually set the sidewalk further back and create larger retaining walls so So, you know, I kind of feel like that staff and the city have, you know, trying to work together on a partnership on this to make our projects also work with their widening and kind of do our part and share it. Any questions for Mr. Berkeley? What is the timing on the project? I believe that currently it's under design, and there's really nothing to hold it, from my understanding at this time. As soon as the design's done, the funds are available, and it'll be constructed thereafter. So the road widening is a KYTC project? No. Actually, the road widening, we are requesting the applicant do. The sidewalk. I'm talking about the whole project though. The whole project. The project right now is just for sidewalks. The road widening is not part of the city project. Is there a road widening plan? There is a plan. I don't know that it's funded though. I mean, I agree that that that section, that whole section of road, you know, needs to be upgraded at some point. at some point but all right let me ask you this question this is a what if so they're bringing in a development plan they want to improve their property they want to you know make make an addition and we're gonna we're gonna ask them to make these road improvements on their behalf The guy next door, he doesn't come in with a development plan. They come with a widening project. He gets paid for his right-of-way, and the state or city builds the project. How is that equitable? Right. Well, actually, on each side of this property, there are already parcels that have done improvements. There's already development pieces, some residential pieces on each side. So we already have portions out there that have the road widening, curb gutter, sidewalk. And then we have kind of this section with not improved. And then there is, you know, right next door might be two properties over. Maybe the adjacent property does have the improvements on it. So if you come down here and ask for a plan, you're going to have to do this, this kind of thing. Versus if you don't, somebody else is going to do it for you. Right. I mean, it's basically you, I mean, if you don't want to develop, you want to wait for the, you know, funding to do the improvements prior and hold off on your development until then. Yeah. full disclosure i do right away prezzo works and forgive me for i for i don't want to speak for casey but i believe in casey will verify this the no additional right away is required for this project is what is our understanding is that correct there will not be right away um you know we worked again we met with engineering and originally their design was going to just put the sidewalk kind of right off the edge of pavement and we you know kind of made them aware and worked together and said it makes sense to construct the sidewalk where it ultimately should be why construct it and take it back out it does add an additional cost that public project because due to the grades it's going to be a more expensive sidewalk project that made sense to do that typically the adjacent property owners did full improvements the curb gutter and sidewalk so traffic kind of felt on this development that they were pushing the threshold of development of the property that it was time to further pursue we discussed it originally and kind of said yeah you know we're not the trips probably aren't there at that time and now it's coming back and traffic feels like that this is the time to get their improvements any other questions okay thank you would you all like you all have any response yes sir come on back up and tell us what you thinking? There are, yes, up and down the road, there have been improvements just, I guess, to the east side of the property, the wider angle. Many years ago, the church that was functioning there sold that property. The Pines is down there now, and they put in a sidewalk. So we've got a sidewalk to our property line on the east side directly where the church is wanting to build there on the west side. There's two or three residentials and there's no widening. There's no sidewalk. It would go, you know, so even if I understand it, even the city project, the sidewalk would terminate on the east side of this lot and then have to cross the street. So everything, even to answer your question, everything to the east of us up until Locust Hill pretty much has not been improved at all. And then beyond Locust Hill, it's just not improved. So it is sectioned. There are sections that have been improved. What we're talking about here, just beyond us, the pines has been improved, and there's a creek. And then beyond it, there's a nursery, which has not been improved at all. So we're talking about 2,700 Old Tides Road, however big that section is. That would be the only thing going on there that's being improved, except when you get another quarter of a mile down the road and another quarter of a mile down the road. So it's been piecemealed. and honestly I'm not real sure what that means by widening the road but if you'll look at the north side right up on Old Todd's Road it's as tall as I am when I'm standing on the road the grade is above my head and you've got about two feet and then you've got trees all along across there it's a fairly significant impact I would think to do what we're being asked to do when really all we're doing is putting the building on the dirt so some folks can meet in the evening and we're not doing anything else to Tartra Casey, sorry. I got just one other question, one other concern based on something he said. I believe at the east end of his property, there is a creek, there's a bridge, there's drain. if he has to do this curb and gutter, does it have any implications on that stream? And does he have to do anything to that stream? Right. I'm not designing it, but I don't think that's going to be a concern. As the sidewalk project, that design work is being done because the pedestrian sidewalk is also crossing that stream. so that's one benefit I don't I don't think the applicant would see it as a benefit but in a typical development it would be the applicants responsibility to do all the grading the design work and in this situation that since it's coming with the city's project the city will have already done all that clearing the design you know they'll do the road widening it'll be accomplished it'll be part of the sidewalk project, but not constructed. Um, so it's, I think some does that, does that appreciate this? I mean, does that pose a safety problem while we're in the interim here? I mean, you got one section of road that's wider than the other and you got. Yeah, unfortunately, in my perfect world, I wouldn't do it that way, but it's just you know we we get the improvements where we can and there's lots of it's a typical standard to have widening in sections and then narrow back down what what what about if if we went the way of maybe reserving the land versus having them build it one more time what about if we went the way of them reserving the land for the lanes versus having them actually build it? The right way is already there. Oh, that's right. You said that's already there. Okay. My bad. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Then in that case, I'll close this part of the hearing and bring it back to the commission for additional discussions on our motion. But in trying to clarify this, at this stage of the game, what the recommendation from the staff is is to approve with all 15 conditions. What I'm hearing from the representatives from the church is they agree to everything except number 13 as such. I'm still, I mean, I'm just trying to get it down to the thing now. With that said, do you have any other questions or discussions? I guess the only thing I'm going to say is because there may be some unknowns with this creek and stream and what have you, with them having to build this, I would be in favor right now of striking 13. Any other thoughts, Ms. Plumlee? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't check my monitor here. Go ahead. If they don't construct it, who will? The city. Okay. Likely will. Everybody else up through there. Oh, okay. I don't think the project that Casey Kalker was talking about involved widening and paving of anything. It's only sidewalk. is that correct so waiting for the city and or the state to widen and pave is an unknown as to when that would occur even though there is a technical ideal or plan to wide and Todd's old Todd's Road that's not on any list or funded or in right I understand that but I happen to have some knowledge of the first section of old tods and you all did that as an lpa project which section would that be closest to codel or closest to richmond road down to locusts several decades ago it's been a while but it was that's That's the way it was done. It was done with state dollars, and the government happened to, the LFUCG did that project. Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a comment. I believe I probably made a similar comment whenever this came before us three, four years ago. There's a residential area to the east. the residential areas to the on the other side of the street and i would think that parishioners daycare participants may relish the idea of walking there as opposed to having to get in their car and drive we've been in a situation for many years probably since i've been serving on this of trying to get street road sidewalk improvements wherever and it's always a tough call but uh advocated for this four years ago whenever it was and i will advocate for it now uh and i can make a motion whenever you're ready okay uh one of the things uh i think it was offered by mr berkeley about well you make your mo i'm sorry i want to i'm not go ahead make your motion here we mr chair i'll move for recommendation of approval with revised staff recommendations for Plan MJDP 18-69 Covenant Church Incorporated. I believe it's the 15 revised conditions. Okay. I want to clarify something. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens and second by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we approve of PLN MJDP 18-69 Covenant Church Incorporated with the 15 conditions as provided by staff. Now you're ready for discussion, Mr. Burke. Yeah, where my comments were was with street improvements, not sidewalk improvements. Because that's what we're talking about here is street improvements. So, unless I'm confused about something. I'm sorry? I still can't hear. Use your microphone, please, ma'am. We're talking about them asking them to why. See, traffic engineering, as we do development across Lexington, where there's property that has not had road improvements as their frontage, typically traffic engineering asks for them to do road improvements in front of their property. So out on Greendale, out on other rural roads, they've always asked for this improvement to be made so that as the property goes down the street, it all connects together at one time. so we have to go as we get it i mean right take each step each mr owens motion reference sidewalks not street improvements well he said that's why that's where i'm clarifying okay that's okay mr owens would you like to clarify my comments were referencing sidewalks emotions referencing the the revised conditions here, which includes food improvements. Okay. And it's okay with the second of that clarification. Are you clear, Mr. Berkeley, on what it is? Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay. Let me review very quickly since we've just had a little time. The motion is to approve PLN, MJDP 18-69, Covenant Church Incorporated, with the 15 conditions provided by staff. With that, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Thank you. Would you all like to take a five-minute break? Okay, just five minutes. Oh, I'm looking at that clock. It's 420. It's not 426, by the way. It's 3. I'm going to get these clocks straight down. Let's take a five-minute break. Five-minute break. The End Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ I can call the commission back to order. Thank you. The next on the agenda is Community Ventures property. Mr. Martin, are you on? Let's move along, gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the last development plan for your review today on your agenda is on page 6, item N. It is a major development plan, 16-55. It is a reapproval. And interesting enough, this plan was eligible for the consent agenda. However, at the last minute in a conversation with our trail designers, in a conversation about coordinating the trail that's going through there and along the frontage with this particular applicant, an issue was raised. It was an issue that only had been briefly raised by your staff during the committee meetings and hadn't been fully explored. And so we wanted to bring this back to you just to explain that situation and why we've pulled it off the consent agenda. So we are on Midland Avenue with 3rd Street, and this is Lewis Street. And Lewis Street functions as one way. You all are familiar, of course, with Midland and then 3rd Street. the good news and i guess bad news of this plan with community ventures is that they've gotten their funding they were kind of hung up and had a problem with some of their funding on this project well it is our understanding they've received some funding they're going to be moving very swiftly on this project however if you remember the original proposal there was a building in this And as you can see, they've dropped to that building and that parking garage off the planned development. Excuse me, Tom, just one minute. Yes, sir. We may have a point here. Mr. Forster would like to say one thing before you start or go further. I just want to recuse myself from this particular application for a conflict of interest. Thank you. All right. Then you have to leave. Yeah, I'm not leaving the building. No, no, just. Come get your elders. Yeah. Sorry about that. Okay. Thank you for that. Again, the change to this plan, this across the street on Third Street, that part is still planned, still part of it. They're going to proceed with this building and the parking associated here, as well as what we refer to as Building A. As I stated, this building and the parking garage has gone away. The Building A will remain as a mixed-use building. It's got both, it's planned for retail, office, and residential. They are planning 38 one-bedroom units and six two-bedroom units, along with over 16,000 square feet of retail in the building. So, again, it's a good project, one that was supported by staff and by this commission when it first came before you. The reason we brought it back to you is our trail system that's going through here, and it has been designed, and that was one of the things the applicant had to work with that design. And we have a right-in right here off Midland, and that was an area of concern. And then with the trail going through here, and I believe, there we go, that's a submittal that shows how it'll function now with the trail and with the development. And again, there's the access point. Here's the trail. The concern was having a large parking lot in that presentation to Midland. And there was just some discussion about enhancing the vehicular use screening along this parking lot. We had a discussion with the applicant on the phone. And they said they had no problem with beefing up that screening relative to the trail and to Midland Avenue. So we are just recommending approval of this plan with an additional condition of resolve enhanced landscaping, vehiculatory landscaping adjacent to the trail and Midland Avenue. And so we're very comfortable, and I think the applicant is too, that that's something that could be done to the benefit of the development and the trail system. I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Mr. Healy has one. So, Tom, do you mind just clarifying how traffic comes in there across, whether it be bike or pedestrian? I know it's right in, but is there a lane whereby they can stack up behind if there's pedestrian traffic or bike traffic? Explain to me how that works. They're going to come up to this point and hopefully look for traffic and run across there as fast as they can. I was afraid of that Yes, you can see This is Midland There had been concern about a desal lane To help the traffic slow down And then make a slow turn Into the property However, that conflicts significantly With the trail design They have bioswale And other features planned in this area So I know Staff under Ken's, you're concerned And I'm not trying to make light of it that is a potential conflict point. And it is anytime you have access points and trails, just like you do sidewalks and driveways. What is a bioswale exactly? It's a fancy name for a rain garden. So we're going to do a rain garden over and above? It being safer? The design I've seen, Mr. Berkeley shows a swell there. And their designers aren't here to answer any specific questions about the trail design, but I have seen that on a plan. Their applicant may know a little more about it, actually, than I do, because he's been working with them to coordinate the design. applicant thank you mr. chairman Chris Howard with Carmen representing community ventures kind of to answer your question mr. Berkeley I mean typically these bioswales are by often filtration or rain garden however you want to classify it and typically they would take water off of the street and hold it for a period of time as it infiltrates i'm not sure of the design of this one we haven't been on the engineering side of that but that's typically if you look at the vine street corridor that's how those operate and i would assume that these would operate similarly but as to mr martin's comment about the enhanced landscape we're perfectly fine with that it's our intention to kind of follow up with with the town branch designers and kind of use their landscape selections, their species selections and kind of carry that into the property, kind of make this a cohesive look along Midland Avenue rather than try to do something different. We feel like that's important for this to be a cohesive look throughout from 3rd Street all the way down. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay. Commission members? If not, we're ready to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes. One question real quick. Tom mentioned something about a resolve. Is that on as a condition? No, sir. That's just a verbal condition we would like to add to resolve that landscaping. Resolve landscaping? Does it need more wording than the resolve landscaping? Resolve landscaping adjacent to the Town Branch Trail and the parking lot. Mr. Chair, are you ready? Mr. Chair, I'll move for re-approval of Plan MJDP 18-69 Covenant Church Incorporated with the 19 conditions as listed in our agenda, adding number 20 to resolve landscaping adjacent to the Town Branch Trail and the parking. You mean committed community ventures, correct? Did I read the wrong thing? You said something about covenant church. I may have. I think we can. I'll reread it. I'm sorry. I was on the wrong page. Plan NJDP 16-55 community ventures property. I'll move for reapproval with the 19 stated conditions in the agenda with number 20 to resolve landscaping adjacent to the Town Branch Trail and the parking. Okay, it's been moved. I apologize. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens and second by Mr. Healy-Bailey that we approve PLN or re-approve PLN MJDP 16-55 Community Ventures property with the 19 conditions provided by staff, adding one more, which would make 20, and the 20 would say resolve the landscaping adjacent to Town Branch Trail and the parking. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. That takes care of that. Thank you. Very quickly, what we'd like to do. Mr. Chair, let's get the other member back in. Yeah, we can get him back here. For those of you in the audience, we are going to go into a brief executive session, and then we'll come back. We've got still a few items to do. Ms. Mundy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101F for discussion that may lead to the appointment of a commission member. Do we have a second on that? Okay, it's been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy and moved second by Ms. Healy-Bell that we go into executive session to discuss a possible potential commission member. All those in favor? Okay, we'll do that. We'll probably be back for those of you. You don't have to leave. We're going to leave. Yeah, we'll leave. And then we'll be back shortly. Thank you. I'd like to call us back into open session for the Urban County Planning Commission meeting for November the 8th. Let the records show that we took no action, official action, while we were in executive sessions. With that said, we need a motion. Mr. Chair, I will move that we accept, approve, and accept Mr. Graham Pohl as a Planning Commission member starting at his earliest opportunity. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve Mr. Graham Pohl as our new Commission member. All those in favor of Pohl, just vote when it comes up on your screens, please. Okay, motion is unanimous. Thank you all very, very much. We've got a couple of other things to take care of. I've got my agenda. I don't know where. It's Ms. Beth Oberman. Bless your heart. Thank you for sticking around here for as long as you have. You're welcome. I told them I was going to, I would have to, Jim Duncan's going to owe me because he told me you all had a light schedule today and he wanted to have me. Well, we do the best we can to keep everybody on their toes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. While they're trying to get things together, let me ask one other thing. I'll be giving each of you a call to double-check your committee standings to see if you're still comfortable staying with the committee you're on or whether you want to switch off with someone and what have you. There may be a couple of committee assignments that I'm kind of holding out, depending upon whether people can – well, I've got a couple of committee assignments I'm kind of holding out on for a little later discussion. But be thinking about that, and then we'll kind of go with it and see what's what. Are there just two committees of the district? That's all. And those are classified by our rules as standing committees. Now, sometimes we have ad hoc committees that can be assigned to help resolve a particular issue, but for the most part, those are the only two committees that we have. I might say I've been told, of course, I try to do a little of everything, but the subdivision committee for a new person is really good in the sense that you get to see those plans and you really learn a lot about it. Now, we do get a dose of it in the evenings and what have you. And one of the things I'm kind of wrestling with is that we have two people, and I was trying to figure out whether we should put one on one and one on the other. But a lot of times when I call, I'm also sensitive to your schedule. Some people like to meet in the morning and get it out of the way. And as long as we have a balance, I think that's the important thing. I think we can kind of work that out. One of the things, too, that we'll have to, well, I think that's good enough for the time being, and that is I'm not trying to force anybody to take a different position. I just want to find out what's going on. In a couple of cases, I would like to have some additional discussion with the people about their assignment and what they're doing and what have you. But other than that, I think we're in pretty good shape. I think it should be a relatively easy thing, but I do want to have that conversation privately with you so that you can tell me what's what. And I will begin. I'm going to start my lunch thing, but I'm going to start with nickel and pole first since they're new on the commission. And then after that, I'm going to start calling you all up again for just another round of things. This is costing me money, by the way. But I do enjoy the discussion. Oh, I'm sorry. No, that's fine. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. Are you finished? Because I'm fine. No, no. I could talk on for days. I was just feeling a little time here. Go ahead. Okay. All right. So we will go ahead and get started. This is our annual report that we give to you all, and we presented this to the council last month. And I think the only new person here is Mr. Nickel. and so it's nice to meet you. I'm Beth, but I'll go ahead and start with your first, let me see here. Hmm, doesn't seem to be. Oh, let me see. Okay, here it goes. All right. So our application process, most of you know this, but in general, we accept applications one time per year. After we get those applications, we rank those, present those to our board, and then we decide which farms go on our federal application. We submit our federal application, and at the same time that we're requesting that money, we are generally requesting money from the city to match that. And our federal grants come from an organization that is under the USDA called the Natural Resources Conservation Service. So you'll hear us refer to NRCS sometimes. Once that money is awarded to us, that's generally around the federal fiscal year in October, then we go ahead with the ordering an appraisal and then presenting that to our board and making offers to the landowner and then signing the contract. And if they do that, then we have two outside real estate attorneys we contract with, and we assign those to them, and they do title research, and a lot goes into that on both our side with legal with mortgage subordinations and with NRCS with environmental reviews, writing conservation plans that they refer to as agricultural land easement plans, and a lot of steps to make sure that everything is okay before we actually are ready to close the easement. And then when NRCS has finished their review, then they give us the notice that we're able to close. And we have to wait until they do that because the city pays the landowner out of city funds. A check is written out of city funds. And then the federal government reimburses us. And our money is not a block grant. Specific farms are funded each year on this grant. And that's one thing you're going to see. I'll go ahead and touch on that. as we go through this you'll see that I talk about sometimes our 2015 substitute farms or our 2016 substitute farms. One of the things when we so since our grant funds specific farms if one of those farms declines our offer we can substitute other farms for those and so and that's one neat thing that's been a really a game changer for us since the 2014 farm bill is that in the past If one farm withdrew, it was a one-for-one substitute. So if we had a 250-acre farm withdrawal and we only had a 50-acre to substitute it, obviously the money we've allocated for that and received for grant funding is going to be a lot more. We could lose that funding. But now with the 2014 Farm Bill, they allow us to keep substituting farms until we utilize all the funding. So that has allowed us to use money in place with our federal grant and to substitute farms. And it also, since we've allocated money for that locally, we are able to already use money that's in place from the LFUCG as well. So that's been a big change for us. But I'll go ahead and start with the farms. Okay, with our summary for this year. So this year we acquired 10 farms totaling 716 acres, were permanently conserved at a cost to the LFUCG of only $907,818.78. Matching funds for these easements was provided by our 2015 cooperative agreement, which is what they call our grant, with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The appraised per acre easement value of these farms ranged from $1,900 to $3,000, but by utilizing the 50% federal match, the average cost per acre to the LFUCG was only $1,268. These farms bring our total conserved acreage to $29,669. The average prime farmland and statewide important soil score of these farms was 90%, which is great. All right. giving us some issues today. Maybe the battery's dying. Can you flip it forward? Okay. All right, I'm ready. Okay. So our 28 closing, 2018, I'm going to refer you all to the maps that you have. And I've written the farm numbers on here. And as we go through, I'll point those out to you all. So our first one is Farm 39, 2002, that's down on your left on Military Pike. It's David and Nancy Algar. It's 40 acres, and they consolidated a 10-acre tract and 30-acre tract for PDR. It was $2,500 per acre for a total of approximately $100,000. And on that right side of Military Pike where it is, we have now over 427 contiguous acres of PDR-protected farmland. But one of the neat things about Military Pike, if you'll look at that, we have over 1,300 acres of PDR-protected land on Military Pike. So that is a great one. As I drive down at easement monitoring, you know it's one stop after another. So that's an area we're really proud of. Our next one, we'll switch over to your top right side of your map, Farm 1 2015, the Greer Hancock Farm LLC farm that's at 2661 Houston Antioch Road this is a approximately 144 acre farm that appraised for 2750 per acre a total of approximately $395,000 and you can see that the piece that that filled in that is over 1,000 acres of PDR protected farmland contiguously there so that was a great piece for us to get so we're excited about the acquisition of that farm our next one is down farm one 2014 down in your bottom right it's on evans mill road this is stacy and tina brown it's 60 acres appraised for 2 500 per acre and a total cost of approximately 150 000. there is a 175 acre farm adjacent to that so that's now over 235 acres of contiguous protected farmland our next one is back up on north cleveland so on the up on the top right of your map and this is sarah asbury sanderlin and 40 acres was 2500 per acre for a total cost of a hundred and a hundred thousand dollars a neat story about this one so this sarah's farm is part of the asbury family had a farm of over 270 acres and mr asbury divided it for his children so they would each have a piece but it still functions as one farm and sarah's brother farms it and they have all put the individual pieces into pdr and so sarah's was the last to go in so that entire 270 acre farm is now in but in addition the area that it's part of is over 730 acres there so that was another great acquisition our next one is down um on jack's creek pike damon and deborah millert's farm 5 2011 i've got the number written inside the little urban service area and it is 142 acres appraised at $3,000 per acre for a total cost of around $427,000. It is adjacent to a bluegrass conservancy farm. That's what the light green on your map is. And then it connects to some PDR. So together in all that, there are over 574 acres of protected farmland. Our next one is over on Kearney Road, Farm 12013. So on your top left, and this is Brist Stable, LLC. It's a 41-acre farm. Appraised price was $2,000 per acre for a total of $82,400. And it is adjacent to one of our farms that is under contract right now, so together we will have over 120 acres after that farm closes. Our next one is on your left as well, right below that, Farm 17, 2007, on Elkchester Road, the Wade family. So this is an approximately 79-acre farm appraised for $2,000 per acre, and the total cost is around $158,000. So the Wade family is one of our largest contributors to the PDR program. So this, they are family. Some of you may know Jim Wade, that's an active crop farmer in Fayette County. But it is a family of six siblings that grew up on these farms. This is their eighth farm that they put into PDR and over 635 acres. So they are one of our largest contributors to the PDR program. So we are really grateful for the Wade family and the fact that conservation has been so important to them. Our next one is Farm 25-2007 up on the top left. Candy Meadows, LLC, that's at 3910 Lemons Mill Pike. This one's approximately 41 acres. The appraised price was $1,900 per acre for a total of about $77,000. And as you can see there, a lot of green. We have over 600 acres of contiguous protected farmland there. Next is down on your bottom right, John Burns and Barbara Burns Roof Farm 22,008 on 8th and Swanot Hill Pike. It's approximately 90 acres. The appraised value was $2,400 per acre for a total of about $215,000. And one neat thing about that, if you'll look at that, you can see the farm on the right side, the one we just acquired, that's a triangle shape. The other side that's kind of triangle shape, it was part of that farm as well, and it was split by I-75. And so Mr. Burns and Mrs. Roof put the left side, as well as that adjacent parcel is theirs as well, into PDR about 10 years ago. and now put this section in. So this is their third parcel. And together with just what's on the right side of the interstate, now with them putting this piece, there are over 320 acres of farmland, PDR conserved farmland there. And our last one this year was Farm 13-2002 on Briar Hills. And so on your right, and I've written it inside the urban service area, This is a 40-acre track that appraised for $2,500 per acre, approximate cost of $100,000, and it is across the street from the 280-acre Heisel Farm Park. So that's a big area of city farmland and will contribute to the scenic view of that. So that was another good acquisition. So our total this year was 716 acres, and the total cost was approximately $1.8 million. Our federal reimbursement was $896,000. All right, so let's see. I think it went backwards instead of forward. Okay, one more. All right. So our pending easement status. So those, again, were under our 2015 grant. So this is our 2016 federal cooperative agreement. We have seven farms under contract right now, and they have all been assigned to closing attorneys, except one, and should be closing by late March of next year at the latest, we hope. And so there are, since we cannot give addresses until these close, I'm just going to give you all the total acreage. So it's seven farms totaling 766 acres. And if all close, we will have 30,435. So we will pass 30,000 acres next year, which is great. All right. And next, let's see. Okay. So our next is our 2015 grant substitutions and our 2018 grant applicants. NRCS just awarded us this funding in September. We had the appraisals, got the offers out. Four of those have already accepted the offer. One more we expect this month. The total on those five is 274 acres if all of them, if this final one accepts their offer. Okay. All right. So our 2016 grant substitutions are in process right now. With these, we have six farms. totaling 563 acres. Most of these are the farms that applied last year. We really had a great group, and so we're going to go ahead and submit those to NRCS and expect those to be approved. All have high soil scores and will be good candidates for the federal funding. All right, so our next group is our farms that are eligible for LFUCG non-match funding. So these are our farms that, in other words, are not eligible for federal funding. And we have four of those. And two, it's the soil quality and the natural area. So the federal government requires that the prime farmland soil, and together with the statewide important, equal at least 50%. And 99% probably of Fayette County farms have that. As you can see by some of the farms that are green but outlined in black, we can go pretty far down and still meet that soil score. But when you get right down to the Kentucky River area, a lot of those farms do not meet that. And so we have two applicants that do not qualify because of the soil quality and then two because of the citizenship of the owner. Okay. And then our ordinance requires that we also tell you all about farms that withdrew from the PDR program. And so we had one farm that withdrew that had applied in 2016. That was someone who was new to Lexington. Actually, his attorney applied for the program, and he thought the owner might be interested. But as the owner moved to the farm and thought about all the things he wanted to do, He decided he wanted to make improvements, build a house, do all this first. He may come back to us later, but has withdrawn for now. The other four were farms, as you can see on their application date, that applied. Most of them, some as early as 2002, and had just changed their mind about actually putting the farm in PDR. A couple of those were natural area farms. And our board has this year just started to talk about instead of waiting with those natural area farms and not pursuing them because they do not meet the federal guidelines, instead offering them a 50% cash donation just like we do the other farms. We spend 50% of local money but also have a 50% donation. And so, but these farms had decided that they just weren't interested in PDR anymore. Okay, so our future acquisition summary. So right now we have 12 farms totaling 1,030 acres are currently funded by the LFUCG and NRCS and in various stages of the acquisition process. Six farms totaling nearly 563 acres are being submitted to NRCS as substitutes for three farm withdrawals on our 2016 cooperative agreement. If all farms are successfully acquired, we will surpass 31,000 acres. Though Congress has delayed passage of the 2018 Farm Bill until later this year, both the House and Senate versions of the bill include full funding for the federal matching program we utilize. And they were supposed to pass that by September 30th and delayed that until after the election. I actually just read some information today that they are saying they will pass it by the end of the year, but we'll see. But the good news is both versions right now of the house incident have full funding. As a matter of fact, they have more funding for this program than they did in 2014 allocated right now. So, and that is it. Are there any questions? Mr. Elias. Beth, do you mind touching on the recent council committee and such and what was discussed with that? Do you mind just kind of informing this group about some of that? Sure. So you all may know that the council has had a subcommittee looking at boards and commissions and the makeup of those. and one of their goals was trying to diversify. They were looking at the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment and our board, the Rural Land Management Board, and looking at diversification geographically, racially, all sorts of things, trying to look at our boards and make sure they were well diversified. And so what they've learned was that they cannot really change the makeup of the council does not have jurisdiction over the planning commission or the board of adjustment. But since our board was created by ordinance, they can make changes to that. So they had talked about one of the proposals was to add language to our ordinance to say that if you served on the Rural Land Management Board, you could not serve on the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission, that you couldn't serve on any of the three boards at the same time. And they ended up withdrawing that and not pursuing that. so that one did not pass but what they did do they have added two council appointed seats to our board and those will be each council member will be able to nominate one or two people to the mayor and they are supposed to be neighborhood leaders who have an interest in either ag or environmental issues and then they also are adding a council member to our board our board is one of of the only city boards I believe that does not have a council member and so they are adding a council member to our board and these they are going to incorporate these with the some changes our board is making to our ordinance and we they will hear that again on December 4th at the Planning and Public Safety Committee and then go ahead and get that passed I don't know if they'll get it passed this year because that's one of the last weeks they're in I hope they kind of so we can start fresh in the new year since they're adding people. You know it's always good if people can start in the beginning of the year rather than having to try to catch up but so that is the status they are adding. They did not pass the recommendation to prohibit people serving on any of the three boards of the simultaneously but they did add three to voting seats and And the council seat will be non-voting to our board. Any other questions? All right. Well, I have about 15 here. Oh, no. I'm just kidding. Okay. That's the luck of getting the end of the day. Everyone's too tired. That's true. Thank you for the report and excellent job. Okay. Thank you all. Very, very much for your patience as well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Mr. Duncan, anything else? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to remind you all that we have a work session next Thursday. The 15th will be in the third floor of the Phoenix Building, at which time you will be presented. We will discuss the final draft of the comprehensive plan. I believe it is long-range planning's expectation to get that to you all tomorrow. So you'll have a few days to review that before we meet again next Thursday. Okay. Any other business to come before this council or commission? If not, without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very, very much. Thank you.