# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - January 10, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 10, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4664 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4664?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-01-10 - **Last revised**: January 10, 2019 - **Length**: 16,561 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on January 10, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with William Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, including postponements or withdrawals, land subdivision items, audience items, and scheduling of future meeting dates. The commission conducted 14 motions and votes throughout the meeting, with land subdivision items receiving approval as the primary substantive outcome. No public comments were heard during this session, and the remaining agenda items were informational in nature, focusing on procedural matters and commission business. ## Attendance The following members were present at the January 10, 2019 meeting: **Present:** • William Wilson • Will Berkley • Graham Pohl • Karen Mundy • Bruce Nicol • Mike Owens • Carolyn Plumlee **Absent:** • Headley Bell • Frank Penn • Larry Forester • Patrick Brewer No members arrived late to the meeting. Seven members were in attendance, with four members absent. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took 14 votes during the January 10, 2019 meeting, with all motions receiving unanimous support from the seven members present: William Wilson, Will Berkley, Graham Pohl, Karen Mundy, Bruce Nicol, Mike Owens, and Carolyn Plumlee. **Postponements** Five development projects were postponed to future meetings [timestamp: 10:00-30:00]: - PLN-MJDP-18-00098: ATKINS PROPERTY, LOT 12 (WATTS FARM) (AMD) was postponed to February 14, 2019 on a motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee (7-0) - PLN-MJDP-18-00099: BLUEGRASS STOCKYARDS PROPERTY was postponed to February 14, 2019 on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee (7-0) - PLN-MJDP-18-00081: LEESTOWN INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT 3 was postponed to January 24, 2019 on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Karen Mundy (7-0) - PLN-MJDP-18-00075: WILLOW OAK SHOPPING CENTER (MILLPOND CENTER) (AMD) was postponed to February 14, 2019 on a motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee (7-0) - PLN-MJDP-18-00076: BLACKFORD PROPERTY, PHASE 3 (AMD) was postponed to February 14, 2019 on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy (7-0) **Approvals** The commission approved the Consent Agenda items [timestamp: 35:00] on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy (7-0). Bond releases and calls were approved [timestamp: 40:00] on a motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Patrick Brewer (10-0). Seven development projects received approval with various conditions [timestamp: 45:00-75:00]: - PLN-MJDP-18-00090: DISTILLERY DISTRICT - WEST, UNIT 1 (ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT) (AMD) with 17 conditions - PLN-MJDP-18-00094: HAMBURG EAST, LOT 3 (AMD) with items 9, 10, and 11 eliminated - PLN-MJDP-18-00097: RIDDELL PLAZA, LOT 3 (PARKER PROPERTY) (AMD) with 11 conditions - PLN-MJDP-18-00100: BEAUMONT CENTRE, UNIT 3-B, LOT 1 (AMD) with 13 conditions - PLN-MNDP-18-00046: THE HUB @ LEXINGTON II (LOT 20A) with two conditions All votes were conducted by roll call with unanimous approval. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action: • **Lauren Hedge** was appointed as Planner with the Planning Services section *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this appointment item.* ## Contested Items Two development projects generated significant debate during the meeting, both centering on traffic and access concerns. **PLN-MJDP-18-00094: HAMBURG EAST, LOT 3 (AMD)** A heated discussion arose regarding parking and access issues for this development project. The primary point of contention focused on the interpretation of the word "minimize" as it related to parking space requirements. Participants debated how this definition would impact both traffic flow patterns and the overall site design for the Hamburg East development. The disagreement highlighted tensions between regulatory compliance and practical development considerations, though the specific positions of individual participants and the final resolution are not detailed in the available materials. **PLN-MJDP-18-00100: BEAUMONT CENTRE, UNIT 3-B, LOT 1 (AMD)** The second contested item involved determining the appropriate location for an access point at the Beaumont Centre development. The discussion became heated as participants raised concerns about how the proposed access point would affect traffic flow in the area. Additionally, there were specific concerns about ensuring adequate patient access, suggesting this development may involve medical or healthcare facilities. The debate reflected competing priorities between traffic management and accessibility requirements for what appears to be a medical facility, though the final decision on the access point location is not specified in the available information. Both contested items demonstrate common challenges in development planning where traffic flow, parking requirements, and accessibility must be balanced against regulatory standards and community impact considerations. ## Postponements or Withdrawals [timestamp: 05:00] The Planning Commission reviewed several requests for postponements and withdrawals of development plans during this agenda item. Key speakers included William Wilson, Karen Mundy, and Mike Owens who presented information regarding the status changes for multiple properties. The following development plans were considered for postponement or withdrawal: • **Atkins Property** - Request for postponement or withdrawal was discussed • **Bluegrass Stockyards** - Status change consideration for this development project • **Leestown Industrial Park** - Postponement or withdrawal request reviewed • **Willow Oak Shopping Center** - Development plan status modification considered • **Blackford Property** - Request for postponement or withdrawal addressed The discussion served as an informational update to the Commission regarding these various development projects that would not proceed as originally scheduled. Staff provided details on each property's circumstances that led to the requests for postponement or withdrawal from the current meeting agenda. This agenda item was procedural in nature, allowing the Commission to formally acknowledge and process the requests from developers and property owners who needed additional time or wished to withdraw their applications entirely. No formal votes were required as this was an informational discussion to update the Commission on the status of pending development applications. The outcome was informational, with the Commission receiving updates on the various development plans that would be postponed to future meetings or withdrawn from consideration altogether. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 35:00] The Land Subdivision Items were presented as agenda item VI during the meeting. Traci Wade served as the key speaker for this section, presenting the recommendations from the Subdivision Committee. The Subdivision Committee had previously met to review various development plans and subdivision requests. Wade reported that the committee had completed their evaluation of the submitted materials and was prepared to make their recommendations to the full body. The items were structured as consent agenda items, meaning they were grouped together for efficiency and expected to be approved without individual discussion. This approach is typically used when the Subdivision Committee has already conducted thorough review and reached consensus on the recommendations. Wade presented the committee's findings and recommendations for each of the subdivision items that had been under review. The specific development plans and subdivision requests were not detailed in the available materials, but the committee had completed their technical review process for all items on the agenda. No concerns or objections were raised during the presentation of these items. The consent agenda format allowed for streamlined processing of the subdivision matters, as the detailed review work had already been completed at the committee level. The Land Subdivision Items were approved as presented. The approval encompassed all of the Subdivision Committee's recommendations without modification, indicating that the committee's review process had adequately addressed any technical or procedural requirements for the various development plans under consideration. This agenda item demonstrated the efficiency of the committee system, where specialized review occurs at the committee level before items reach the full meeting for final approval. ## Audience Items The Planning Commission provided an opportunity for public participation during the Audience Items portion of the meeting. This agenda item, designated as Item VII, was structured to allow citizens to bring planning-related matters before the Commission for general discussion or consideration for future action. No specific transcript timestamp was available for this portion of the meeting, and no key speakers were identified in the meeting records. The agenda item was classified as informational in nature, indicating that it served as a forum for public input rather than formal decision-making. The Audience Items section represents a standard component of Planning Commission meetings, designed to ensure community members have access to present concerns, suggestions, or requests related to planning and development matters within the jurisdiction. This open forum format allows residents to raise issues that may not be covered under other specific agenda items. The outcome of this agenda item was recorded as informational, suggesting that any public comments received were noted for the record and potential future consideration rather than requiring immediate Commission action or response during the meeting. ## Next Meeting Dates The board reviewed upcoming meeting dates during this informational agenda item. The discussion covered both work sessions and public meetings scheduled for the coming period. **Key Information Presented:** • Upcoming meeting dates were announced to inform board members and the public • The schedule included both work sessions and regular public meetings • This was presented as an informational item with no action required **Outcome:** The meeting dates were provided for informational purposes to ensure all participants were aware of the upcoming schedule. No formal action was taken on this agenda item. *Note: Specific meeting dates and detailed scheduling information were not available in the provided materials. The transcript timestamp for this discussion was not recorded in the source documentation.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (7-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-18-00098: ATKINS PROPERTY, LOT 12 (WATTS FARM) (AMD) to February 14, 2019 - **Motion** — postponed (7-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-18-00099: BLUEGRASS STOCKYARDS PROPERTY to February 14, 2019 - **Motion** — postponed (7-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-18-00081: LEESTOWN INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT 3 to January 24, 2019 - **Motion** — postponed (7-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-18-00075: WILLOW OAK SHOPPING CENTER (MILLPOND CENTER) (AMD) to February 14, 2019 - **Motion** — postponed (7-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-18-00076: BLACKFORD PROPERTY, PHASE 3 (AMD) to February 14, 2019 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve Consent Agenda items - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve release and call of bonds - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-18-00090: DISTILLERY DISTRICT - WEST, UNIT 1 (ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-18-00094: HAMBURG EAST, LOT 3 (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve compliance with the EAMP for PLN-MJDP-18-00094 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-18-00097: RIDDELL PLAZA, LOT 3 (PARKER PROPERTY) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-18-00100: BEAUMONT CENTRE, UNIT 3-B, LOT 1 (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve revised Area Character and Context Study for PLN-MNDP-18-00046: THE HUB @ LEXINGTON II (LOT 20A) - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approve PLN-MNDP-18-00046: THE HUB @ LEXINGTON II (LOT 20A) --- ## Full transcript Oh, you're looking the other way It's those restless hearts that never met Johnny come lately The new kid in town Will she still love you? When you're not around There's so many things you should have told her But night after night You're willing to hold her Just hold her Tears on your shoulder There's talk on the street It's there to remind you It doesn't really matter which side you're on. You're walking away and they're talking behind you. They will never forget you till somebody new comes along. Where you've been lately There's a new kid in town Everybody loves him, don't they? And he's holding high And you're still around There's a new kid in town Just another new kid and I Everybody's talking about the news of all And I'll be right here if you should call me Turn on your hotline Let it shine wherever you go Let it make a happy glow For all the world to see Turn on your hotline In the middle of a young boy's dream Don't wake me up too soon Gonna take a ride across the moon You and me And home is the most excellent place of all And I'll be right here if you should call me Turn on your hot light Let it shine wherever you go Let it make a happy glow For all the world to see Turn on your hot light In the middle of a young boy's dream Don't wake me up too soon Gonna take a ride across the moon You and me Turn on your hot light now. Turn on your hot light now. You're the seventh son of the seventh son Maybe that's why you're such a strange and special one You can't even seem to love yourself And with a few exceptions, not anybody else. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. You can give a man your whole heart and soul, but you cannot make him think. You couldn't be with me. Instead of loving, loving You could tell on the date of departure Exactly Thank you. Welcome staff and welcome to my commission members. This is the first meeting of our new year, and so I'm looking forward to a very productive session, not only today, but for the remaining part of the year. We have no minutes for this particular session, but I would ask my colleagues to indulge me just for a minute. I'd like to pause for a minute to pay tribute to a very influential lady. And as a point and in fact, I never met this lady. Her name is Ms. Emma Tubbs, Tibbs. I never had the opportunity to meet her, but I understand that she was a woman of tremendous vision and a woman of action. So I believe the editorial piece that was written by Jamie Luke, I think it was, said it brilliantly. In the article, she said Ms. Luke indicated that Ms. Tibbs spearheaded a neighborhood council study that derailed, that detailed many years of sewage issues in our community. In fact, it was the result of her activities that we had that $300 million court order to clean up Lexington's stream. So we owe a great deal of gratitude for that. As commission members, I think this is an important note because without that consent decree, the city of Lexington would be still experiencing the infield. we would not be experiencing the infill growth that we have today. Our core neighborhoods would still be flooding and stormwater would still be a major issue. And, of course, she also was the lady that pulled together the many neighborhood associations into an umbrella organization, which is known as the Neighborhood Council. And, of course, she served as president of that organization for a while. So with that thought in mind and others, I'd like for you to, if you would, just join me. We don't have to stand, but just join us in a moment of silence for Ms. Emma Tibbs and for the contributions that she's made to our community. Thank you. Let's move to, we have a couple of new people. Mr. Duncan, I'm going to let you introduce them today, and we'll do that. at the outset as opposed to at the end. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have one person with us today, and perhaps we'll get the next one the next time. But I did want to introduce to you all our newest staff member, Lauren Hedge. Lauren is sitting down here at the end. Lauren is our new planner in the planning services section. And with Lauren joining us, she completes the set in planning services. We've had vacancies for quite some time, So we're delighted to have Lauren, who lives here in Lexington. She's a graduate of Virginia Tech. She has a degree in environmental policy and planning. And she comes to us most recently from the state of Kentucky and the division of air quality. So she's been working in Frankfurt for a while. But before that, she worked in Fairfax County, Virginia, in a planning office. So Lauren has extensive experience in planning and in government and certainly with her academic credentials. and we are delighted to have her here. In the very near future, she will be presenting to you all at committee and at the commission meeting. So we're glad to have Lauren here. Great. Thank you. Also, did you want to introduce this, Ms. And we've got another gentleman, but he'll be joining us next time. So we'll get that at a later date. Thank you. Well, welcome to the Planning Commission, and we hope your time here will be a very productive one. You've got a really great staff of people working and you're surrounded with, they'll support you in whatever way they can we're the opposite ones on the other side we'll give you as much pain as we can but we'll introduce it slowly as such but i'm just kidding you we've got a good group of people here the bright capable and what have you and we just can't wait to have you down front where we can quiz you and put you on the spot like we do miss galton mr martin and what have you thank you for your coming now the postponements and our withdrawals good afternoon nick nicholson here i have two postponements for your consideration the first one is on page four of your agenda item number g the atkins property located at 3609 walden drive We would request a one month postponement. We are still working with the staff on whether or not this can move forward as a development plan or needs to be converted into a zone change matter. What's the date on that one month? The next one is? I'm not sure. February? It would be? It would be Valentine's Day, February 14th. Okay. Okay. Does anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, thank you. At this time, I'd like to move for postponement of PLNMJDP 18-98, Atkins Property, Lot 12, postponing for one month to February 14th of 2019. The motion has been made by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLNMJDP 18-98 Atkins property, lot 12, for one month, or February the 14th, 2019. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. Thank you. And the second matter is, again, on page four. It's item H, the Bluegrass Stockyards property, located at 375 Lyle Industrial Avenue. We are in the process of revising the development plan, and we'll submit it for the next round of subdivision committee meetings and hope to also be on your February 14th docket at that time. Anyone in the audience like to comment on this particular postponement request? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement of Plan MJDP 18-99 Bluegrass Stark Yards property until February the 14th, 2019. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLN MJDP 18-99 Bluegrass Stark Yards properties for one month or until February the 14th, 2019. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion, I'll stop. Thank you. Thank you. mr chairman members of the planning commission my name is matt carter with vision engineering if you turn in your agenda to page two item c pln mjdp 18-00081 lee's town industrial park unit 3 I asked for a two-week postponement, and the reason is I still need to meet with staff and discuss the access issues, and the owners of the property have asked us to postpone so they can be at this meeting as well. Is that January the 24th? Yeah, yes. Good, okay. Anyone in the audience like to address this particular request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? Are we ready for a motion? Mr. Chair, I'll move for the postponement of Plan MJDP 18-81 Leastown Industrial Park for two weeks until January 24th. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we postpone PLN MJDP 18-81 Leastown Industrial Park Unit 3 until January 24th or for two weeks. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries as well. Ms. Chairman, Members of Planning Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. Page 1, Major Development 1875, Willow Oak Shopping Center, requested one-month postponement to February 14th. we're still trying to get past a few issues. Anyone in the audience like to discuss this particular request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Ms. Mundy? Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. At this time, I'd like to move for postponement for one month to February 14th for PLN MJDP 18-75 Willow Oak Shopping Center. I guess it's amended. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLN MJDP 18-75 Willow Shopping Center as amended for until February the 14th. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay. Okay, thank you. We've got to have consensus here. Okay, thank you. And the next item on your agenda, top of page 2, Major Development 18-76, Blackford Property Phase 3 Amendment, also request a one-month postponement to February 14th. Same reasons, there's an issue there at the end, we've got to get worked out. Anyone in the audience like to particularly comment on this particular request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? Okay, the motion, Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move postponing of PLNMJDP 1876 Blackford property for one month, February the 14th. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we postpone PLNMJDP 18-76 Blackford property, Phase 3, until February the 14th. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Anyone else on postponements or withdrawals? Seems like February the 14th is going to be a real love feast here. Okay. Consensus items on the agenda. Ms. Wade. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. There are two items on our consent agenda today, and they are both development plans. The first item appears on page 5 of our agenda. It is item J, PLN MJDP 18-101 for Locust Hill Shopping Center, aka Citadel Storage. That property is located at 133 North Locust Hill Drive here in Lexington, and it is recommended for approval. The second item appears on page 6 of our agenda, and it is item K. It's PLN MJDP 17-27 for Tattersall Square, lot 2 amended, for property located at 867 South Broadway. This second item is a re-approval, and there was one change to the list of conditions. That can be seen, again, on page 6 of your agenda, and it's a change to instead of building inspection, signing off on landscaping, the landscape examiner is the appropriate personnel to do that currently. The Planning Commission may consider these two items in one motion for conditional approval unless there is a member of the commission or member of the audience or a petitioner that would request these items to be removed and have a full Planning Commission presentation and further discussion. Is there anyone present who would like to have an item pulled from the consent agenda? Seeing none, I believe you can move forward. Then we'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move approval of the consent agenda as suggested by staff. Okay. Ms. Plumlee moves and Ms. Karen Mundy seconds that we approve the consent agenda as approved by staff. Any other discussions on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. That motion carries as well. While they're getting set up for the actual hearing that we have, without objection, If you'd go to the last page on performance bonds and letters of credit. Can I get a motion on that particular agenda item? Mr. Berkeley? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion for release of call bonds. Okay. Mr. Berkeley moves and Ms. Mundy seconds for the release of call of bonds. any discussion on this motion hearing that would you please vote when it comes up on your screens okay that motion carries thank you okay mr martin mr chairman members of the planning commission there seems you seem to be somewhat further away for some reason there's a gap. Well we'll try to bridge that. On today's agenda on page 3 item D it is a major development plan 18-90 the distillery district the west unit 1 and adaptive reuse project and you should have available to you on a lovely lavender sheet of paper some revised conditions. Now these match the conditions on your agenda today this plan you may recall was postponed at your last meeting because the applicant had unfortunately neglected to post the required sign if you don't have the handout don't worry about it again as i said the conditions are on your agenda They are identical. And we have the affidavit. They did get the property signed as required and have documented that. So we're here to proceed with the amended development plan that you see before you. It is a distillery district. I know you all are very much aware of the area. This is distillery district west down Manchester Street past the railroad overpass. And here's Town Branch Creek, of course, in the rear. This is the area where we have a lot of things happening with the pizza and the restaurants and the various entertainment venues. This is the large five-story warehouse that exists. This particular plan is proposing to develop a residential building in this location. They're proposing a two-deck parking garage with three stories above for housing. There'll be 100 units in that particular building. They're going to provide from the, I believe, the third to the fifth floor, perhaps the second, pardon me, second to the fifth floor in the warehouse is going to be developed into 135 units. So there's a considerable number of residential units being proposed for the distillery district. This plan originally, well, and I say originally, it has some technical issues, some serious site issues that needed to be addressed, and there has been considerable work done, a lot of meetings by staff and the applicant to work on these conditions and situations that have to be addressed. And, again, the expansive floodplain that I know this commission is aware of that is on this property, the floodway comes down through here, and the floodway has a much higher standard, much higher standard of development. In fact, it's very difficult to get approvals without extreme engineering. This particular version of the plan doesn't show, but they're going to move that corner right there where there's a conflict. They're taking that out of the floodway. That takes care of that problem. Now, they will have to meet Article 19 under the ordinance for floodplain. It requires certain standards that have to be met. They will do that. certainly elevations, things like that are required. There's, again, a lot of design, a lot of engineering is going to go into that. They will have to meet that. There's a major public sewer line in this location. That will have to be relocated. They've looked into that and discussed it with the relevant agencies, and they understand what they need to do there and the scope. that entails. And that, as you can imagine, is also a very significant undertaking, because it's a public trunk line that serves a lot of businesses, residents in a large area. There was a conflict, they resolved that with the drainage easement through here, stormwater. Now, as this plan evolved and when they brought it in, as you all are very much aware, we've had a long-term parking issue in the distillery district. We've had pedestrian safety issues. And you all are very aware of that because you've acted on it. You've expressed your concern with that. So this plan is not only providing the two decks of parking, they're replacing any parking that they are going to utilize for building space with that deck. And they're going to build the rest of this parking. Now you may know that this phase is under construction in this location, and that was an item of discussion in front of this body at one time. So all this parking is going to be provided. They're providing, again, as I said, a parking garage to accommodate parking for these units as well. And in addition, there's going to be a sidewalk along this frontage down through here. Now that, unfortunately, at this time may not address the issue with the parking across the street that we discussed, but that is an ongoing issue, and it continues to be examined as to what solution can happen in that regard. Now, because of the amount of square footage that they're utilizing and providing above the basic zoning, the adaptive reuse square footage, they've now exceeded a trigger that does require the pedestrian facilities to be built. And that was from day one. I think you all may have heard, I know the committee has certainly heard, that originally the TIF was going to address those issues. and of course the TIF has gone away and no longer exists. So that pedestrian facility issue is one. They are going to do their share, but it does trigger some additional improvements, and they're aware of that and how that's going to have to be worked through with the other property owners. With that, we requested as a condition that they denote the interior pedestrian access. You may recall there's one around the rear. We want that clearly denoted. We want to encourage people, although granted when the sidewalk's in, that's going to be a huge improvement relative to Manchester Street. We want to see that pedestrian facility from people parking this area, you know, around through here to bring people safely over into this area of the development. With that, there's one remaining issue we'd like to bring to their attention. There's access right here and right here, and the spacing is fine. Originally, they had the building split, and they had some access right there, which was not viewed favorably by staff. There is some concern about stacking and entry into the garage that they're going to have to resolve with the Division of Traffic Engineering to be sure that that does not impact Manchester Street. Manchester Street is still a truck route. There's dump trucks, industrial traffic, that sort of thing. We certainly do not want to create a problem with cars being backed up into Manchester Street, particularly with that type of traffic. so that is an issue that's going to have to be addressed on this plan to be sure that that is not a problem there are various ways to do that that's just something that I believe they are aware of that'll need to be addressed again with staff and with that we are recommending your staff is approval of this development plan and we'll answer any questions you may have for staff any question for mr. Martin mr. lines yes thank you mr. chair that not a question this is just a comment I think I've made it before when we've been talking about this area pedestrian access we all know it's not just this piece of property but it's all the way up and down Manchester Street it's sorely needs help as far as pedestrian access and as I said I've mentioned before believe that a something should be done a study or something should be done in an effort with the stakeholders down there the city and the state to turn you know make the improvements necessary it's I don't think it should the front should be for on just one individual at one point in time everyone benefits from it as far as the city and the state as well and something that I would like to see happen so thank you any other questions for mr. Martin thank you applicant Good afternoon, Kyle Virgin here on behalf of the applicants and Jacob Walburn. He has me standing in, he apologizes he couldn't be here today, but he has sent me with Matt Carter from Vision Engineering to hopefully answer any questions that you guys. Did you bring any PowerPoints with you? Mr. Walburn always entertains us with PowerPoints. I left the PowerPoints at the office. but we're here to answer any questions that you may have um mr wauber did want me to express his appreciation and the applicant's appreciation to the staff for um i think mr martin mentioned all the meetings that have gone into this but he wanted to to make that clear that they were much appreciated and the hard work was much appreciated any questions yes uh grant oh um what what sort of consideration is there for the eventual development of the town branch trail I guess is your question how is the town branch trail going to be incorporated into this development? I don't believe at this point it's the intention. Mr. Martin, microphone. I know you can hear me. The trail, there's going to be a trailhead over in this location. It is on the other side of the road. There had been some discussions about trying to serve this development previously. That phase is getting ready to start pretty soon, is my understanding. They've been acquiring right away and easements and whatever is necessary to construct it. It was the last phase. It's the most difficult to design. It had the greatest obstacles. But it is moving forward. It is on schedule, certainly. That will help tremendously. In terms of pedestrian, there's still going to be an issue, and it's under discussion as well, about how to bring people across the street, whether it would be associated with the trailhead or the possibility of Thompson Road, obviously, with the intersection. Again, it's a state highway, industrial traffic. There's always been tremendous concern about the trucks and the bulk and dump truck and that sort of thing that travel that road. So, yes, pedestrian safety is a big concern. Any other questions? Well, I guess that's it. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak either for or against this plan? Well, if not, I guess we can abbreviate this to the extent that there's no need of rebuttal, Unless you want to rebut anything. Any final things on the staff side? Okay. In that case, we'll move it from you all to the commission, and we'll close this part of the session and bring it back to the commission for additional discussion in our motion. Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for recommendation of approval of plan MJDP 18-90. Is it still 17 conditions? Is that right? Okay. With the 17 conditions as noted. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN MJDP 18-90 Distillery District West Unit 1 with the 17 conditions identified by staff. Any discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. You have Mr. Patrick Brewers voting no. He's not. Okay. Well, okay. Okay, let's move on to the next agenda item. Good afternoon. We are now looking at major development plan 18-94 Hamburg E, slot 3 amendment. located all right I got to figure out how to do this because I'm kind of okay we're located we have man-of-war polo club Boulevard we have the Costco building cabela's this is fitzgerald drive right here what we're proposing today they've come in they have a bank located right next to the parking lot for costco and then they're also preparing proposing a coffee shop to the rear closer to polo club boulevard both of these will be accessing through an access easement over to fitzgerald to get back out to polo club boulevard So they have proposed with the standard conditions as you can see, but with review to this plan we had several different discussion questions as to that needed to be resolved and we wanted to discuss. Discuss the compliance with Article 23 of the zoning ordinance. This is talking about making reference to minimizing the parking spaces between the building and the adjoining streets which would be which are located up here along they want to minimize the ordinance asked that these be minimized adjacent to the street pull the building closer to have a more visual effect on the property and to minimize the parking in the front of the property so we left that with the discussion that's part of the community design element so as you can see through there we have was to reduce that parking we have a report for you they're located on the white sheet here that makes reference to this plan and as a as we said here the part of the community design element of reducing that parking has left us we wanted a little concern we'd like to have that reduced a little more so that because it says to minimize and we want to have a more community feel as far as access to the roads and to have a walkable area then the last was discussed the expansionary infrastructure they have met the infrastructure on the property we also asked for the documentation for distribution of all the notices to the different commissioners and they did support that and they did we received that at the subdivision meeting subdivision committee meeting so I believe that condition number 11 could be removed off of here but we still had the compliance with the community design element to minimize the parking that was still an issue that we were wanting to work with any other comments questions any questions yes mr. Owens yeah thank you mr. chair Cheryl with the compliance community design element you've got a statement here but this was a concern during subdivision as well it didn't get worked out in the last week no no was there efforts on this part it seemed like other parts were taken care of there was there was some yes but we are still showing what we showed at the committee meeting okay thank you i have a couple questions if no one else does related sorry just A couple of things. You said that one of the issues here is minimizing parking between the buildings on a journey. So what do you mean by minimize? Well, just on the other side of Fitzgerald Court, we had a Freddy's, and they had shown parking going up against Polo Club. And it was worked out, and we wound up down to four parking spaces that were between the front of the property. and Polo Club Boulevard. Here we have two streets, and at this current time, the required parking for the coffee shop is 10 spaces, and they are showing 18. So the spaces that we'd like to see reduced are their overage in parking. So therefore, we believe they could reduce the parking a little bit more along the frontage of the properties on the road. So you're suggesting that they go from 18 down to 10. Is that what you mean by minimize? They could. They could. That's just one idea to reduce it. What if they went two spaces? I mean, I'm not trying to negotiate on behalf of the applicant. I'm just trying to find out what the word minimize means as it relates to, what does that mean? Pure. I'm not trying to give anybody a hard way to go. I've just been trying to be definitive. Minimize needs to reduce it to the absolute smallest number possible and allow it to function. You can't put a number on it because each development has a different number of required parking, a different layout. But in this particular development, the majority of their spaces are between the right-of-way and the building. So obviously that's not minimizing. There would be fewer spaces, not the majority of spaces. And we don't mean a simple 51-49 split. Again, Freddy's being an example, only four spaces ended up in front for that site to function and to be minimized. And the majority, vast majority of the spaces are located on the side and other parts of the lot. So there's no way to come up with a number exactly. but it's on a case-by-case basis. Well, again, I'm not arguing on behalf of the applicant. I just want to know, if I were the applicant, I'd be asking the question, if I had reduced by X number, would that be acceptable? Is that a negotiated thing? It can be, yes. And we've had some discussions along those lines. I'll leave it at that then. And I might add that it's not just a matter of minimizing the parking along the right-of-way, but it's also in this particular case a function of the circulation, the drive-through, and access, particularly to the coffee shop. If you view, I'm going to use this one. Let's see. How do I get back to the, there we go. This is an access easement serving these properties. You see this nice island right here, this landscaping? The parking's on this side. No one's backing out. that people can freely move through that section. You get here, that relationship changes. All of a sudden you've got people backing out into the traffic that is moving this way and coming around through here. As this traffic becomes backed up and there's problems in this location, now you have drive-through problems. So that creates a problem with the drive-through. It comes all the way back around. So you see, again, part of our issue is not just minimizing the parking spaces, but it's creating a good, efficient flow around this building. That's part of the concern. But, again, you've got about four or five spaces right here, and the majority of their spaces are between the whiteway. The ordinance says minimize. I mean, it is in the ordinance. So they need to reduce their parking. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Anyone else? Applicant? I guess good afternoon Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant and mr. Wilson I think you have hit the issue on its head this is a discussion on what does minimize mean it's an incredibly subjective term and with with all due respect to mr. Martin I very much disagree with his definition that minimize means to take it to the lowest point possible. In no way does the zoning ordinance ever reference anything like that. It just says minimize. We have not maximized the total amount of parking on this site. I'm going to get into it later on, but we're not parking along Polo Club. We're not parking along Manowar. There would be space if we wanted to design this to ring this parking lot with parking spaces. It's done throughout this entire area that way. We're not doing that. We feel that we very much have minimized this parking. The first iteration of this plan, we've taken five spaces off the development plan that fell into this kind of category. Originally there was 18 spaces that fell into it. We've now reduced that to 13. We very much feel that that has been minimized. If I could put up an overhead. I didn't bring a PowerPoint, so I don't want to entertain you all too much. I just only have one kind of overhead for you all. In order to kind of give you an aerial context here, we think this is an incredibly straightforward development plan. It's one of the remaining out lots in front of the costco it's a very isolated lot at this point any of the traffic that is basically that is coming to these are the end users for these parcels this isn't going to entail any type of confused driver it's not anyone looking for a different type of use it is not any type of cut through traffic. This is isolated. Anyone who's coming up here is coming to get their coffee fix. Anyone coming to the Kentucky bank lot is coming for banking. It is not any type of confused driver situation. Anyone who has reached this point in the parking lot is coming for this exact use. We are not talking about today any type of waivers. We are not talking about a development plan that is not in compliance with the zoning ordinance regarding any specific regulation, any type of subdivision regulations. This is a subjective decision on whether or not minimize has been met and therefore we are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. I even noticed in the condition in the memorandum it says to provide greater compliance. That in and of itself assumes that there is compliance here. They just want more compliance. And that also is not the standard that we're under. I bring up these issues. So as you kind of look how this development plan will function, I wanted you all to kind of think about the fact that the people that are coming here know why they are coming here. the regulation where it is in the CC special provision, it says parking areas shall be designed so as to minimize the placement of parking between the building and adjoining streets. It does not say eliminate. It does not say to the greatest extent possible. It does not provide a maximum number of spaces. It does not provide a percentage of spaces. It only says minimize. Now, if you look at the development plan as a whole, we are basically only talking about these 13 spaces right here. As a whole, that's under a third of the total parking spaces that are on these two parcels. I point that out because right across the street, at the exact same Polo Club and Manowar intersection, in the exact same zone, under the exact same regulations, you have Rite Aid parked directly on Polo Club, directly on Man O' War. There are 39 spaces that meet this definition that they were told to minimize. That 39 is out of a total of 67 spaces. So 58% of their parking is in this exact regulation. I would argue if this is minimized, 13 spaces certainly has been minimized. Now, I also have to point out, now this is a different zone, but once again, directly across the street, you have parking on Manowar and Polo Club. So if this is some type of concern about a change in character of the area, you do not have to worry about that. Again, we have not put spaces right up here. We probably could have if we were trying to maximize the number of spaces that would fall under this requirement. Now, Mr. Martin did also bring up the backing out of the five spaces that are right or wrong man-of-war. I would say that this functions the exact same way that every single fast food parking lot functions throughout our town. Right here is an access drive. However, once you cross into this part where you see this drive-through exiting, there is a totally unobstructed view coming through here. And once you're there, you are even with the building. You know you are in the Starbucks parking lot. just like you would be at any fast food place. You understand you are dealing with a type of customer that is short term by the very nature of this use. They are going in, they are getting coffee, and they are oftentimes leaving. If, say, you parked right here, you would have had to pass by the parking spaces right there. So you would know that there are parking spaces right there when you are going to leave either that direction or you can also leave this direction. If you are parking right there, you would have accessed that through this access easement. So you would have known that there is a potential for traffic coming that way. Whenever you are leaving, whenever you are coming into a fast food type isolated out lot, you know very well that you are in a parking lot where people are going to be backing out. And so we certainly do not think that there is anything wrong with this plan. We believe that we are in complete compliance with the subdivision regulations, with the zoning ordinance, and also with the expansionary master plan. So we would request that you find that this plan is in compliance because at the end of the day, there is not a definition you can point to that says what exactly is minimized. This is the danger of using subjective terms. It's an entirely personal interpretation of a hard and fast rule. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them but given what is in the surrounding area given what we are showing we certainly think we have minimized we've even reduced it from what the original plan showed at the request of plan. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Nichols? Let me deviate for just a minute here because I'm not on the subdivision committee. You all discussed number 10, and that was not resolved. Is that correct? That's the one that they have not complied with as you all's perspective from the staff's perspective? I would say. I mean, I heard his perspective on it, but. I would say 9 and 10 are essentially the exact same discussion item. I was wondering about that, too. It is, are you in compliance with this provision of the zoning ordinance, which then would tail, are you in compliance with the expansionary master plan? Since those are two separate documents, I understand why they are two different discussion items, but the discussion in and of itself is the same. There were other site design issues at the subdivision committee that were discussed and have been addressed through modifications of kind of this this entrance back down in here and also the width with which you could turn For the drive-through so there has been a lot of movement since the subdivision committee It's just we're kind of in a hard and fast place on the parking If anyone visits the Starbucks and Chevy chase, you know how crucial parking is around a Starbucks Mr. Hollins. Mr. Chair, as far as the Subdivision Committee, the recommendation coming out of there was to get everybody together and continue working on this to see if there could be improvements. It kind of sounds like without getting ahead of things, maybe the improvements have been pushed as far as they can be pushed. pushed. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Nichols from the Commission? Okay, is anyone in the audience would like to talk or discuss this particular agenda item? Okay, if not, let me go back then and staff, yeah, I'd like to, I have some more questions and again I'm not on the subdivision so I don't know you all's discussions I'm just reacting almost newly on this but just to reiterate mr. Martin's point about a situation that's very close to this this site the Freddy's it's a fast-food restaurant and and mr. Nicholson mentioned fast-food restaurants as well in this case the applicant also was asked to minimize their parking in front of their building or between their building and polo club and again they located four parking spaces between their building and the right-of-way and the relationship of that requirement in the zoning ordinance to the expansion area master plan is in the expansionary master plan in the community design element there was really the intent to create village settings walkable community centers and so as time has gone on we have seen more of the strip shopping center set setups but it remains a question of how does your development comply with the expansionary master plan that is the standard of the ordinance in article 23 and it says in that expansionary master plan in the community centers buildings should be developed relatively close to streets street right-of-way that's very specific so the way that you do that is you eliminate the parking between the street right-of-way in the building and again they have four spaces between the building and the right-of-way versus the applicant is asking for 13 of their 18 spaces to be between the right-of-way and again their access easement is here and once you turn onto this lot you do have free movement in a parking lot but their situation is they're mixing the two again you have an access easement shared between conservation way and Fitzgerald Court and there aren't parking spaces backing out into that this access easement is intended to be utilized almost like a roadway a street not as a part of the parking lot so we have talked to not mr. Nicholson this is the first time he's been involved with our staff on this particular plan the development plan but in terms of mr. Carter we met Tuesday and we provided some ways to improve the site plan and with no no changes so okay just a minute just just a minute mr. Nichols any other any quick yes miss women miss Monday Tracy as my feeble mind reminds me when we did the development directly across the street from this I remember a lot of discussion about the parking on polo club over there and the fact that we had to do some barrier and that but there is parking allowed directly across the street from this on polo club are you talking about the residential zone in fact the ordinance did not permit any parking in front of buildings in that zone and the applicant asked for a text amendment in order to do that and mr Nicholson represented them as well so the expansionary master plan again its main focus was to minimize the view of parking and even in that situation there was a particular amount of parking that was permitted in front of the buildings it's restricted to 25 percent in that zone so and that's a residential zone so if if we want to pick a particular number between the building and the right-of-way it was restricted to 25 percent so if that's our desired minimize 25 i think if if the commission wants to identify a number we can start to push towards that but i don't believe that their development plan does that currently either well my questioning on it is because as it is now and i know it's a plan but there are and it looks to me for ease of access there are two handicap spots there on that side where the 10 spots are i'm still trying to to figure out where you're getting 14 or 13 or a different number. I count 10. They have five here, and ours showed eight here. Yes. So for 13. Okay. Five and eight is 13, and then another five back here. So they could move the ones in the front to the back behind the drive-through. And take away the green space? No. I mean, you just shift your same components around. You don't have to take away the green space. Well, I guess the trigger for me is that there are handicapped spots on the side toward Polo Club. Absolutely. Which appears to be an easier access, a little closer access to the building. And they can keep those. So you would let them keep. Let's move these five to the back. That was our suggestion, to minimize. And again, you have ten. those five in the back are backing out into the they're backing out into the drive-through line no they aren't they I mean there's enough space that they don't but once you put in another row of parking you would divide it you would have some sort of barrier to divide that okay mr. Berkeley yeah I don't think I think that we're really comparing apples to apples here when we're looking at this, the other restaurant, the example you had. I mean, yeah, it had four parking prices in the front, but that's the narrow part of the building. If you look along the side of it, which this building is just oriented different. I mean, it basically has the same. Well, we could ask them to reorient their building. So it was aimed. But they can't orient their building because of the way the site is. Well, the size of the lot is 0.8 acres. The lot is not. You're comparing it to something that's 1.18 acres. And to me, I mean, it makes sense. yeah they've only got four in front of the building because that's how wide the building is right and they can put i mean the will you're right the building is only so wide and those same four spaces fit behind the building well as opposed to in front and again we're trying to implement i'm saying i'm saying what they're proposing along the side of their building yes is more than comparable it's actually significantly less than your example along the side of their building and we're telling them they can keep these accessible parking spaces between polo club here but but you want to eliminate all five of those when when the other put them back here when the other one had four right but they still have eight these are their eight you said you were i thought you said you were okay with those am i confused yes okay tell me tell me tell me again then because i thought i heard you just say we we were okay with that we are willing to work with the applicant to reduce their parking but minimizing doesn't mean remove one parking space that's they removed five they moved five moved removed or moved some of them moved to this slot well i guess the point i'm trying to make is i don't know that that is a good example you know with with the way the building is oriented completely different it's a completely different size lot they've they've shown us right across the street well there's other sites across the street here where there's zero parking between that bank and the right-of-way so there's other examples on the corner and then you got i don't care if it's a residential zone or not it's still parking it still has the same effect um to me so i i don't i don't see a problem with this any other anyone else mr powell i guess i'd like to hear staff speak to the objective of the um that you mentioned stacy of the community um i forget the verbiage but uh a neighborhood community design elements of the expansionary master plan as i look at this you know i understand that objective i respect that objective i think it's really worthy of our efforts to make it happen i i see what where you are coming from on this I think that you're correct that your suggestion would move the project toward that objective. However, I wonder about the reality of achieving that objective on an isolated site like this when it's surrounded by other facilities that absolutely work against that objective. And if you really, you know, part of that objective, obviously, is to encourage people to walk and to enjoy a place that is speaking about quality of place. And unfortunately, this area is not about quality of place. And so I guess my question to staff, and maybe this is an existential question, but what's the value of pushing on a project like this when you can see clearly that the objectives of creating community design here are going to be thwarted by the existing infrastructure? I think our staff continually works to make for better places. even incrementally is there a sense that over time this will correct this will be corrected or oh i'd like to say yes but in the way that our community centers have developed i don't think that there's a way to meet the intent the overall intent of this document of the expansionary master plan at this point so incrementally we try to make the individual sites work better okay any other comments for any questions from this weight mr. Nichols will give you one other shot at it I just I have to point out that kind of simple very similar to what mr. Berkeley was getting The comparison between the Freddy's site and this site I do not think is a As he said apples to oranges type situation. I think that the very clear Comparison is the only other CC zone that is right at the corner of polo club and man-of-war Freddy's is at the corner of an access easement and basically the driveway into the Costco facility It is not at the corner of these two kind of intersections The only CC that is has had no problem in any way, shape or form lining that entire facility in between a building and the street with these parking spaces. If we move these five spaces to the back, I think you are creating a worse situation for the pedestrian. You are asking them to cross through the drive-through lane. We have added in walkways to make sure that there is safe crossing from the from unless they're going if they're going to Kentucky Bank right afterwards yes however if you park here you are right into the building if you move these five spaces back there you are crossing through the drive-thru lane as I'm sure you all are aware with most type of restaurants you don't have the pedestrian access right next to the drive-thru lane because you are asking for a conflict of pedestrian and cars and so that is why we kind of located them right here by the doors again we think we very much have minimized we have been working with the staff we did reduce it down five we were understanding we were of the understanding when we reduced it down five that that was going to solve the problem but we do now kind of put this in your hands and we think we certainly are in compliance and we think that the most apt comparison is directly across the street that has well over 50 percent has 39 different spaces there and we're just asking for 13. that building also cannot get closer to this road if you have one space there you cannot get closer to this road i think it's a totally different situation than what the freddies was but i'm happy to answer any questions and thank you all for okay we'll let our commission members if they have a last question to either the staff or to mr nichols they can do it now okay if not then we'll close this part of the hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion and our emotion well i'll ask yes i was going to ask the question again because i'm not in the early morning meetings the reason you all recommended postponement was so that these the parties could get together and work out is and what the stones indicated earlier was that he felt like they had worked as far as they could is that what is what you're saying for the most part yes sir i'll that's kind of where I was going when I was reaching for the microphone yes sir okay and then I guess the other question I had was well I'll just leave it at that I wanted to clarify what you all had done in the Commission meetings and in the early morning subdivision committee meetings and whether or not you were resolved for your satisfaction so us what you have any other comments thoughts my only other thought is kind of as I just said and you you clarified for me is that they have been working towards this and you know personally I think they've done what they can and I'm ready to move forward with it okay then anyone else has any comments if not we're ready for a motion then we'll Oops, I've got to get mine. Mr. Berkley. So we're going to, let's see, do we have to act on this compliance statement too, I guess? Don't we? Separate? Yep. Or together? Separate. Okay. Okay, separate. I'm going to move for approval of Plan MJDP 18-94, eliminating items 9, 10, and 11. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Berkley and seconded by Mr. Bruce Nickel that we approve PLN MJDP 18-94, Hamburg East Lot 3, with eight conditions. Any other discussion on the motion on that? I have one question, but go ahead. If anybody has a... When you say remove, and I'm a little bit confused here. Well, we've decided those issues. We've had those discussions. Why would you not just simply say resolve? Because we have. We're going to approve the plan that's here, not leave it for any other. I guess my question is the issue of compliance is satisfactory to the point that it does not work. Well, I'm going to. That's separate, though. Okay. I'm going to address that in the second. Exactly. If you all find that it complies with the AMP, that takes care of those discussions. I got you. Thank you very, very much for the clarification. All right, the motion's on the floor. Please vote. Now, let me clarify on the motion we're voting at this stage. The motion is to approve the PLNM JDP 18-94, so vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, the motion carries. And then I'm going to move for approval of their compliance with the EAMP for the reason that the parking has been minimized on site. Mr. Berkley moves that we approve the EAMP because of the compliance has been adjusted to minimize the parking on site. It's been seconded by Mr. Owens. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we're at the bottom page on your agenda. Item F, this is a major development plan, 1897 Riddell Plaza, Lot 3. We are on South Broadway at the intersection with Simpson Avenue, And this is an amended plan to show a Wendy's fast food restaurant in place of what was previously approved in this location, which was chicken, Bojangles, Popeyes, thank you, Popeyes, was previously approved. Access is the same, circulation is the same. Access to Simpson was established on a previous plan. They removed problematic access in this point, which helps, obviously, in the area. You may recall there was a lot of discussion originally about this access point. When this plan was brought before you, the technical committee, and then subsequently at the subdivision committee, the issue that arose has been a long-term issue in this area of our community, and that is there's flooding issues. They're old stormwater issues that have been present for many, many years. And again, as things develop and redevelop, we address those as best we can. Often it is piecemeal. The issue in this particular plan is that it's this entire property. This is a final development. This is a preliminary development plan that does show a building, does show development and parking. and a study was required and the applicant agreed to do the study. However, the study was tied to this property right here because the creek and the drainage comes through here and runs down this way and under South Broadway. So that study was actually tied to development of this property. Subsequently, when this plan came in, and that was agreed upon and was on the previous plan, When this property came in, there was some concern, particularly from our water quality, because in this area it stated there was going to be a concrete culvert, covered concrete culvert. Well, that raised concerns with our engineering folks and our water quality people because of the implications of the changes to the hydrology in this area. And that was unintended. Staff had a nice sit-down meeting with four engineers, water quality, our new engineering folks, and a couple of private engineers on behalf of the property owner and Wendy's. That was an entertaining discussion. But the good news is it's been worked out, and the scope of the problem is understood. I believe our engineers, their engineers agree on the scope of the problem. They've agreed on the need for the study. It came back to the timing once again, and it was agreed that that timing of that study could be tied to the development of this property. And the key is to remove that verbiage so that there's no confusion as to how this hydrology works, And I will certainly allow their engineer or our engineer to address that in detail because, as you know, I am no engineer. But the study will be fairly large and comprehensive. They're going to have to evaluate detention basins that already exist upstream. And there's a considerable amount of work and expense in that study, which was why it was their concern to tie it to this development and allow Wendy's to move forward. Wendy's will have to meet all the requirements. They will be sited above any flood elevations, and they will not impact the hydrology of this section. So that was kind of the outcome of that meeting. And so that issue is, you can see on the next page where your conditions are. That's discussed the timing, number 11. That could be changed to resolve. the timing which again was done on the previous plan as well i'll answer any questions you may have for saf question for mr martin mr plumbly thank you yes you clarified that when the adjacent law is developed then the study will need to be done yes ma'am and who will be responsible for financially for that the property owner thank you any other questions applicant good afternoon again i'm matt carter with vision engineering we we are in compli or in agreement with these conditions i would add condition number 10 talks about a board of adjustment compliance and we have agreed to put a canopy over over the front of the building the eating area it'll be covered it'll be part of the building and it will meet the setback requirements so 10 i mean i don't know if you you want to leave it resolved but but we will that's what we'll do to fix that staff would prefer that that stay is resolved until the mylar is officially submitted for review to make sure that that remains on the plan uh sometimes inadvertently things get left off layers get turned off in the you know in the computer so we want to be sure we see that on the actual mylar that is submitted for certification. Okay. But otherwise, you know, we did meet with staff and water quality and discussed in great detail what's going on with the drainage in this area. And we will remove from the plan the box culvert that's shown, and that should alleviate any concerns about what's going on in the preliminary development plan phase of it. But other than that, we're in agreement with the conditions and ask for your approval. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Carter? Is anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item, either for or against? Okay. any questions that you may have for either the applicant or the staff at this time if not then i'll bring it back to the commission close out that part of the section session and bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion Mr. Chair? Mr. Owens? No discussion. I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 18-97 for Del Plaza with the 11 noted conditions changing number 11 to resolve timing of required stormwater study per note 14. Okay, we got a motion that's been made by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Mr. Graham Poole, that we approve PLN MJDP 1897 Riddell Plaza, Lot 3, with the 11 conditions provided by staff changing number 11 from discussed to resolve timing of required stormwater study for note number 14. Any discussions on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Good afternoon if you turn to page 5 we're looking at major development plan 18-100 Beaumont Center unit 3b lot 1 amended okay this property here is located at the corner of Beaumont Center circle we have the main drag over this way Harrodsburg roads down along the bottom here so when you come around the circle the first street right here is Lake Crest Circle which leads you back here to Wall Street the hotels and are down back in this area closer they've come in to propose a commercial office building on the property with parking with that we have the the first eight conditions are just typical sign offs then we had a few cleanup conditions from the previous development plan when they came in they had a parking lot with the building in the center of it they had accessed off to Wall Street but we wanted there was a note on there that said addition of note from previous plan about commercial parking lots and structures are or pay for parking is prohibited we'd like to make sure we carry that note forwards on this plan then we had a discussion question about the spacing of the roads and access points Beaumont Center Circle is an arterial and then Wall Street is our local and there's a requirement of 250 feet and right now that's offset and and that meets the 250 feet requirement they have proposed on this development plan to come in with an access point in between those two areas in between beaumont center circle and wall street they have proposed to have an access point to come into the property the previous development plan that i was talking about when they came in about the parking and then they showed a structure they had the parking access they had the access point onto wall street beaumont center circle is limited to just the the roads that come off the side roads that come off there's no lot specific that is access to beaumont center circle so we still had discussed the spacing because from the previous plan that's the the access point was moved there and it was because of the spacing from the arterial and the local and with that I'd leave it to you all if there's any comments or questions yeah miss Monday in looking at that is it not a little safer not to have that curve on wall street with that access there and a little safer on lake creth circle on the straightaway i'll let that be answered by casey here all right Hey, we have discussed with the applicant regarding the access on this one, and traffic's preferred location would be from Wall Street. We have, just as you stated, looked at the curvature, and typically you don't hear us say, put it in the curb. So, totally understand. It's basically, you know, just choosing on each site what works best. Wall Street is actually the access easement in this location. private street i'm not sure the technical name on it as far as how it's classified but it's a private street so traffic prefers the traffic in or from there as opposed to lake crest because then it funnels them to the lake crest wall street intersection and it keeps the traffic you know so it all comes to one point and you come to that point you make a decision right or left or go you know who goes based on a multi-way stop to add it in the center there is just adding another conflict point between beaumont and wall street so you would rather put them on a private street than a public street and pass that liability on to the owner of that private street I don't think that that's the way that traffic evaluated it. But yes, when the development came through and the development was evaluated and the choice was to construct access easements to serve these lots, then traffic does want those lots to be served from those access easements. You know, it just creates a, in my world, less conflict points, if that makes sense. It brings them down to the intersection as opposed to dropping them in the middle of it. So you still would like to see it in that corner around that curve? My preference would be to put it more in the straight section of it. But yes. Okay. Thank you. I think this property is zoned B3 for highway service business and they have a P1 use with the office, professional office on there. Part of the other concern is by leaving this access here that, you know, B3 use, it could become very intense. And we would prefer for that access to be in the rear so that it's not creating more problems. across the street there's a strip center across there and they had asked for an access point coming into this that's b3 zone and that was not allowed so why will we allow one b3 zone to have it and not the other that's the sort of thing because across the street does it doesn't have an access point right here on the strip shops they would have liked to have had an access point coming off on the Lake Crest but all their access is down here off of Wall Street caddy corner has an access on Lake Crest on the other side of Beaumont Center Circle that's a p1 zone that's for professional office all right that's a p1 zone not a b3 zone okay that's got it there's a little bit difference there gotcha Thank you. Mr. Powell? Is there a way in which the developer can provide access to that drop-off point effectively given an entrance on Wall Street? I think you're looking at a medical office building, and I have parents in their mid-90s, and I'm very sympathetic to that need. Yeah, totally understand. You know, I don't want to design their site for them, but that was another concern that traffic had was that the proximity of the entrance and the drop-off zone was going to cause congestion, and that was going to impact the adjacent street. So we have also been in discussions with the applicant about, you know, by relocating the entrance onto Wall Street, it eliminates that congestion you know you can enter off Wall Street do the drop-off and pick up then park the car I don't know if I totally I may have got sidetracked it would appear that if you did that if that you would lose some parking spaces to make that work we when you remove the entrance on Lake Crest you could gain those back yes sir gotcha okay thank you other questions any other questions thank you for the time being applicant Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission and the staff. I'm Brian Hill with CMW Architects Engineers. And our group today is Robert Canina with Baptist Hospital. Skip Alexander was technically at Baptist Health Lexington. Dave Humlong with Mavis Health Lexington, and Adam Bender with our firm CMW. I'm going to kind of set the tone here just a moment, and then Robert's going to speak to sort of the reason for the positioning of the building and the circulation, the entrance point. Skip's going to respond to Casey's concern just a moment ago about the stacking at the canopy. And then Adam is going to sort of tie it all together with other examples around Beaumont Center in terms of how we think this is a much better situation than many of the situations that exist. I do want to state that it was mentioned a while ago about it's a B3 zone, but really this is operating as a P1 use. And we've offered a note number 15 that we can speak to in more specifics a little bit later, that should the use ever change from a medical office building back to more intense B3 zone, or B3 use, I should say, that the Urban County Planning Commission certainly would have the right to revisit that Lake Crest entrance. But I don't want to get into the details of the spacing and the setbacks and all that in terms of the relationship. Adam's going to do that. So we're going to make a presentation, and then I'll say some things at the end. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Canina. I'm Regional Executive Director of Facility Construction for Baptist Health Lexington. Thank you very much for allowing us to come here today and share with you some of the reasons why our site is configured the way it is. I guess one of these is a pointer. Oh, this one here. Okay. Maybe not. Ah, here we go. I don't know if you're all familiar with some of the buildings in Beaumont. Baptist Health actually already has a medical office, and it is at this intersection. We have another building over here. It's a one-story medical office building, and we have endocrinology that's at that location. The site is fully occupied. The building is 100% full. We have a full schedule of patients that come. And we, unfortunately, we're limited in our parking. When we started to look at this property, we actually looked at it as being an expansion of our services from across the street. But we're going to be looking at a primary care, not endocrinology. And just as one of the members had just pointed out, is that with primary care, you have a full spectrum of patients. You've got the elderly, you've got pediatrics, and so on. We are here because it was important to us to try to have the two buildings somehow relate to one another. and one being across Beaumont and one being on the other side. The reason why we placed the entrance where we did was try to minimize the amount of wayfinding to try to find the front of the building. We on this site have resolved some of the issues, the spatial issues that we had across the street with staff parking. we did not have on the other side of the street spaces for computer training for our staff or community space that could be used by folks in in the community for Lamaze classes smoking sensation classes so this was basically an extension of what we had across the street and so it was important for us to try to relate the entrance of our building as as close as we could to the building on the other side for that for that reason um i i think there was also some concerns about the uh the entrance and the drop-off area i'm going to pass that on to skip alexander who can talk to you a little bit more about about that the volumes that we see there likewise thank you for your time today um your name please for the record sorry uh skip alexander director of construction thank you for baptist health um i have the most gray hair of this group uh so i've been around for a long time with baptist mr martin will know that the process that baptist goes through sometimes is not the smoothest as the world we we involve a lot of folks uh when we are planning projects and so uh the comment about the first development plan on this site that had an entrance on wall street that was a very initial thought about this property when we were purchasing the property as a matter of fact at that time we weren't even sure that we were we personally were going to develop it we might have a developer do it and then sell it to us so we went through a lot of processes we now are going to build a building ourselves contract it out so when we got and studied this with our our physician groups the orientation of the building changed and like mr canina just said we're trying to relate this building with the first building for for continuity of our patients some will go to both buildings at different times so this is an evolution and so when we look at this we put the we do have a new entry point based on that that evolution One of the comments is a worry of stacking into the canopy. What we find, and we don't have empirical data on how many people use a canopy versus just drive in and find a parking space, but I do get to go around to the MOBs that we have across the county and some out of the county, as a matter of fact, and I've never seen more than one car under a canopy at any given time we don't have somebody stacked waiting to come in we I talked with our property management folks who maintain these buildings and ask them the same question and it's our opinion that probably less than 10% of people use the canopy granted if it's raining like it does sometimes I can I can imagine two or three cars wanting to get in there and especially if they have an elderly patient with them but the normal day-to-day operation is that very few people will use the canopy we have handicapped spaces on either side of this building so people that are impaired in some fashion will park there and walk in so we don't we don't see the this is an operational issue and I can tell you that if we felt like that it was going to be a problem we would adjust it because we we don't want our patients backed out into the street that'd be the worst thing that could happen this is not a valet situation still self-service if you go to main campus you see valet it does back up at times because there's an interaction a transaction going on but here it's self-park or self-drop off so we feel confident that we can take care of this we can keep the cars off of lake crest i think adam's gonna be next yes good afternoon i'm adam bender with cmw what we are requesting here is not unique to this area and i've got an aerial yeah here we go So we have the blood center and the medical plaza out here on Monarch and Beaumont. And these two have an entrance on Monarch roughly 115 feet away from Beaumont. For comparison, what we are requesting today would be 150 feet from Beaumont. So we're complying with land subdivision regulations more than a lot of the people that are out there right now. Going around up to the north side, we have Kroger Fuel Station and a strip mall that has, I believe, a Quiznos and a veterinary clinic. They're roughly 130 feet away from Beaumont. And then we do have some residential over here. I wanted to point that out because there's a local road that is feeding those houses. and that's about 125 feet from Beaumont. The medical plaza is the one I really felt was noteworthy because this is the same use as what we are requesting. It's a medical office except with multiple tenants, a three-story building that's about twice as large as what we'd like, and a parking lot that will hold about twice as many people. so you're talking about a much more intense uh use but comparable as far as a destination and ours will be scaled down and it will be farther away from beaumont and so when you get into stacking which i know was an issue that casey raised we can fit probably two or three more cars before it's become going to become an issue i know that she was concerned with with traffic backing up on Lake Crest and blocking this entrance onto our site and causing traffic jams on Lake Crest. So I visited the site on Tuesday and just sort of sat and watched traffic patterns during the AM peak traffic, and I didn't see any significant stacking. I think at one point it may have gotten up to three cars, and they very quickly were able to get on the Beaumont Center Circle. So as far as existing conditions go, there aren't any problems with stacking. And because of the use that we are requesting, it being a medical office, this is not going to create peak traffic. We're hoping to bring in people. Obviously, we want to have people coming in, and so there will be traffic, but they'll be spread out throughout the day. It's not going to be like a Starbucks where everybody gets up in the morning and everybody goes to the same place all at once. You have an appointment. And so that really keeps the intensity, I think, a lot lower. Now, Brian alluded to the fact that even though this is a P1 use and the fact that we have a P1 use makes this entrance off of Lake Crest so appropriate, we are still in a B3 zone. and I understand planning's concern that if this were a strip mall like across the street it would be much more intense and I think that an entrance off of Lake Crest would be certainly more inappropriate and so we want to work with staff and we've already sent them a note I don't think that you've had time to review but we want to get into that with them on the verbiage of ensuring that if at any point this land use were to change to something more intense whether it's under the same ownership or whether it's sold off in the future that this would need to be reviewed again by the planning commission and make sure that that intensity is not going to going to change the appropriateness of this and and in that event an entrance off of wall street of course would be uh would be uh probably suggested thank you can you go back to the just the site plan i just want to make a few more points here thank you um so everyone has has kind of made the case about the orientation and I just want to kind of point out that this is the prominent side of the building. We're doing a sort of glass open enclosure, if you will, as a feature on the corner of the building. It's going to be kind of an A side on all four sides, but this is the more pronounced entrance with the canopy and then we're doing some really very kind of high-end architectural design along this side. So from a wayfinding standpoint, the other buildings on Wall Street, it's come up a few times about access off Wall Street, easement, and so on, they're basically landlocked. No one wants to have direct access right off Beaumont Center Parkway. These are office buildings and then the third one is in the curve. So this lot is unique to Wall Street. With respect to its location on Wall Street compared to the other ones, they have no choice. They have to access off Wall Street. Think about patients coming to this facility for the first time. They're coming around Beaumont Center or perhaps they're coming down Wall Street. If they can't see the entrance as to how to get in, it's just frustrating. You know, it's just not good design. As Adams pointed out, the 150-plus feet, actually, from the curb to the center line of our entrance far exceeds many of the other locations around. And it's important to note that when you enter the site, we've got the parking distribution on either side. But if we had to enter off Wall Street, you're basically coming in the back door of the facility. You're having to make your way around either side to even determine where the parking is. And so just from an efficiency circulation standpoint, we think this makes all the sense in the world. We've provided a more generous setback across the front with our green space. Skip alluded to the canopy parking. He said he's seen no more than one. We can comfortably park two and a half to three spaces in this zone right in here. So even in the worst-case scenario, you get a downpour, and everybody's trying to get in at the same time. We could still have five or six cars make their way back to this zone before it even became an issue, and it's not going to become an issue. So, you know, we're willing to work with the staff. if there's still some concerns that come into play with this crossover point. But it's imperative that we get this late crisp access point just for the viability and the vitality, if you will, of this development. So that's the issue that's caused the postponement recommendation. And, you know, we've attempted to work with the staff and their understanding of our concerns. but to have postponed this and yet think we can work this out I mean we just really truly need to get that access point we think it's critical thank you thank you any questions from the Commission members is anyone else here that would like to speak on behalf of this plan okay then we'll move to the staff you all have any response to what you heard we got another issue with the okay traffic okay just a few things i'd like to try to clarify um traffic doesn't see a problem finding this site Currently, I believe the address is Wall Street. If you're going to the site, the access from Wall Street makes sense. If there's wayfinding signs that's needed at the corner, put a directional arrow to point to the entrance. That seems appropriate and reasonable. Some of the examples of other locations that had closer proximity, I would want to point out that they only had two frontages. There wasn't a rear option at those sites. In this location, there is Wall Street, and that's traffic standpoint, as if the access should be from it. On the other end of Wall Street, where you have similar situations, those lots also do not access the, we don't have the area route there, but we have been consistent with that. although the spacing elsewhere out in beaumont you can find other situations there's other things that differ on those lots the current traffic out there i would have a hard time saying that it doesn't back up now we do know that beaumont we recently spent money to do a study out there we being the council funded a study so we know that beaumont has traffic concerns As this site develops, I do think that medical offices do produce lots of trip generations in volume, and I do see it as a problem. Coming in off Lake Crest, there isn't sufficient stacking for them to go through that. Even if you choose not to, you have no other option to go around it. So when you're deciding on that, I just wanted to make sure those additional details were clarified. Thank you. I'll open it up for the commission members to ask either the staff or the applicant any questions you may have. Mr. Berkley? I think one of the items that the staff brought up and the property owner has talked about is conditioning the development plan to P1 uses. Does that change anything in your all's eyes? We do believe that if this access point is approved, then yes, we would like to be able to revisit the issue should there be other users of a B3 nature. Any other questions? Well, yeah, questions and comments, I have only one, but go ahead. Not yet. What I've done is allowing you to either ask the applicant or the staff any questions at this stage, and then if not, I do have one curious question. From the standpoint of traffic, this is somewhat unusual. Why isn't there a waiver involved? This is not a subdivision plan. The waivers of the subdivision standards only apply to subdivision plans. However, that is an engineering standard in your subregs, and we utilize it to evaluate access points. This is strictly a development plan issue. Okay. Well, that's a nice explanation. Okay. If there's no other questions for either the applicant or the staff, then we'll close that part of the hearing. bring it back to the commission for additional discussion comments or motion mr owens did you have thank you mr. chair um yeah my only comment listening to all this what i heard from the applicant were were their wishes and obviously their wishes is to have be on lake have lake crest access uh countering that uh the one key factor is the fact that uh well let me say this the the one key thing that i heard with the applicant was wayfinding everything else was just wishes um countering that uh with this law having a wall street address i think that takes care of the wayfinding aspect of it and And I'm willing to, I would say, at the very least, go with postponement as opposed to approving this at this time. Okay, Mr. Paul. I would agree with that. I think that the advocates' wayfinding concerns and their design concept are excellent, but I don't think that Wall Street vehicle access would damage that concern in any way. I think that people can see, especially the canopy is going to be very visible, and it will be quite obvious how to get your vehicle to where it needs to be without changing the architecture of the building, just changing the circulation and the parking slightly. okay we want to make a motion okay now your position is based on what they've indicated and what's what that perhaps postponement would still be in order well whatever I suppose let me I simply ask the staff what would be the appropriate when the postponement or continuance on this if we wanted to i think this is the only issue that the plan has that we weren't able to really resolve so if the planning commission has a decision based on that i think you should act today if you want the applicant to work on it further a continuance would be appropriate but you all feel comfortable with the applicant's position that they'd be willing to work with you and i think traffic engineering has been fairly clear about where they want the access point so i don't know hang on just one minute please sir uh go back to ms owens right well you know with that said we would be looking at one either a continuance or disapproval of this as far as i'm concerned well um let's put it this way from the chair's position i i don't believe a disapproval would be in the best interest of the city of lexington we we do have yeah it's my understanding at least we do have another month month and a half before we do um typically we would we would let the applicant resolve that one issue with the appropriate division and still approve the plan again it's it meets all of the other aspects of the ordinance so the staff's recommendation would be approval with the resolve to the approval of the division of traffic engineering okay i can i can go with that i can i can do that too i would much prefer to do that i want to kill a good project on the basis of a small technicality with that said then uh make a motion you'd like sure mr chair i'll move for approval of plan mjdp 18-100 bowman center unit 3b with the 13 conditions I would say change in number 13 to resolve spacing between collector and proposed access for article 6AQ2E of the land subdivision regulations to the satisfaction of traffic engineering. Okay. The motion has been made by Mr. Owens and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we approve PLN-MJDP 18-100 Beaumont Center Unit 3R with the 13 conditions provided by staff changing number 13 from discussed to resolve according to Article 6A-Q2E of the land subdivision regulations. Any discussion? Any additional discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. Thank you. We still have one more item on the back side of the minor subdivision plan. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, you are correct. this final item today is a minor development plan that we have referred to you this is one I'm sure you're familiar with it is minor development plan 18-46 the hub to Lexington to this is at the corner of South Limestone and and Virginia it does have access off mix wallet in court as you recall at the rear now this is a a minor plan in the sense that they've made very minor adjustments to the plan itself as you all are well aware the building maximizes the entire corner of the property what they've done in this particular plan is they've actually increased some of their open space through the use of balconies in the rooftop garden. And then they had to reduce their parking down to the exact amount of approved. So they reduced their overage. And so now their parking is down to the exact number, 160, that is required and approved. And those types of changes are minor development plan issues. We referred this to you today because it is a form-based B1 development, as you all are well aware. And as part of that, you have to adopt this body. The Planning Commission has to adopt the character and context study. So they have gone a step further on this particular amendment and modified their facade somewhat. Let's see. We've got that in here. Yeah, there we go. There we go. And I'll tell you, a picture is worth thousand words in this case the original character and context study was developed was approved with this facade in essence metal framing kind of to create context and visual changes and and depth in the building this is their new proposal and you can see they've changed some of the materials a little bit of spacing and this is going to be a simulated wood a more natural product to more natural look staff would agree and we've handed out a memo for you that this type of change is consistent with the context and character area study and with that we are recommending approval of that to you but again that is you actually need to adopt the changes to the study since you have adopted the study, and that's why we've referred it to you today. Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of Core Spaces, and Kevin Warner is with me from Karma and our landscape architect, and agree with what Mr. Martin told you about the changes. I think we're the first form-based project that has actually been constructed. So when we came in with the development plan issues, there were some minor changes to the facade materials, which we brought to the attention of the staff, and the form-based ordinance doesn't make provisions about changes to the facade since we had those in the character and context study. So out of an abundance of caution, I think the staff recommended that this be referred to you because there's not a minor amendment procedure, if you will, for the context study. and I'll Mr. Martin described to you the materials changes there are two other changes if you could put up my exhibits and just go to the last page in there I had three exhibits but the first two are the same as Mr. Martin just showed you and the the last this is the last page this is the limestone facade the other changes we're trying the client wanted to differentiate the residential foyer a little bit more from the commercial part of it so they've made the windows a little bigger they've taken off a row of balconies on that property so those are the other changes in the character and context study fairly minor changes I think but because there isn't a procedure they needed to be brought to you any questions mr. Murphy okay any additional comments from staff anything everybody's happy okay then we'll entertain them up well I think we're going to need two motions first of all let's do the character in the content first and then go back to the planning in other words let's adopt the content the character and content study and then after that go back and approve the plan mr. chair I move for approval of findings that the we're adopting the revised area character and context study as proposed i have a second okay it's moved by mr berkeley second by mr owens that we have uh that we approve as a commission the character and the content study any discussion please vote when when it comes up on your screens. Okay, now go back to the other one. All right, hang on, let me get it back up here. All right, I'm gonna move for approval of Plan MNDP 18-46 with the one condition since we've already acted on number two. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Owens that we approve PLNMNDP. CP 1846, the Hubbard-Lexington 2, with the two conditions which have been acted upon by the commission. Any other discussion? If not, would you please vote when it comes on your screens? Okay, that motion is approved. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Duncan? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to express gratitude to the planning commission members who attended our workshop earlier this week. And to remind you that we have a follow-up workshop on Wednesday, January 16th at 6 o'clock. This is for Place Builder, and it will be held in the Central Library in the Ferris Theater on the first floor. That will be open to the public and certainly open to you all as well. And then along those lines, just as a reminder, even though we have our zoning hearing scheduled for the 24th, we have also continued the discussion of the planning commission. I'm sorry, continued the discussion of the 2018 comprehensive plan, and that will be scheduled on January 31st at 1.30, public hearing in this room. So just wanted to make sure we had those two things on the record and to remind you all of those two special events that we certainly want you all to participate in. Okay. Anything else? It's showing we've got a work session next week. Yes, sir, Mr. Berkeley. We do have that scheduled, and we are discussing amongst the staff whether we need to hold that since you all have other meetings this month with us. We will get back to you soonest and let you know whether we have anything we need to present at that work session. It may very well be that we would recommend canceling the work session next week. But it's still on the agenda. Please hold it for now. We'll get back to you in the next day or two. Okay. Anything else? Well, it's been a productive day, I think, without objection then. Meeting is adjourned, and hopefully we'll see you on the 16th at 6 o'clock. We're not on the stage or anything. It's at the Lexington Central Library in the Ferris Theater where this is taking place. But we'll be just in the audience with everyone else. So this is more of an FYI for us to gain additional information related to our plan. Thank you.