# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - May 9, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 9, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4751 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4751?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-05-09 - **Last revised**: May 9, 2019 - **Length**: 18,189 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 May 9, 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 two primary agenda items during the session, both of which received approval. The meeting included consideration of the Manchester Development (Distillery District East, Unit 1) project, also known as Distillery Heights, which involved an amendment (AMD), and the Townbranch Industrial development for the FRM Lawson, LLC Parcel. Throughout the proceedings, the commission conducted seven motions and votes, heard two public comments from community members, and successfully completed action on both development proposals under consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on May 9, 2019: • William Wilson • Headley Bell • Bruce Nicol • Graham Pohl • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Will Berkley • Karen Mundy • Patrick Brewer **Absent:** • Larry Forester No members arrived late to the meeting. Ten of the eleven members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included seven unanimous votes, with all 10 members present voting in favor of each motion [timestamp: 00:00]. **Postponements** Four items were postponed to future meetings: • **PLN-MJDP-19-00020: WEBB PROPERTIES, UNIT 1, BLK A, OUTLOT 2 (REGENCY POINT) (AMD)** was postponed to the May 23, 2019 meeting. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Vote: 10-0. • **PLAN 2005-302F: DENTON FARM, INC. UNIT 3 SECTION A** was postponed to the May 27, 2019 meeting. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Karen Mundy. Vote: 10-0. • **PLN-FRP-19-00005: CROSSROADS CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMD)** was postponed to the June 13, 2019 meeting. Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Graham Pohl. Vote: 10-0. • **PLN-MJSUB-19-00006: TUSCANY, UNIT 15** was postponed to the June 13, 2019 meeting. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Karen Mundy. Vote: 10-0. **Approvals** The consent agenda was approved excluding items D and F on page 4. Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Vote: 10-0. **PLN-MJDP-19-00021: MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT (DISTILLERY DISTRICT EAST, UNIT 1) (DISTILLERY HEIGHTS) (AMD)** was approved with modified conditions. The motion deleted condition 11 and clarified condition 10 with findings that the development plan complies with Article 8-21. Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mike Owens. Vote: 10-0. **PLN-MJDP-19-00023: TOWNBRANCH INDUSTRIAL (FRM LAWSON, LLC PARCEL)** was approved with 16 conditions provided by staff. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Bruce Nicol. Vote: 10-0. All voting members present were William Wilson, Headley Bell, Bruce Nicol, Graham Pohl, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Will Berkley, Karen Mundy, and Patrick Brewer. ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the meeting during the public comment period. **Chris Clendenen** spoke regarding parking concerns related to the Manchester Development [timestamp: 00:00]. Clendenen expressed concern about the total required parking compared to the actual demand for parking in the area. He cited potential pedestrian safety hazards and traffic issues that could result from the parking requirements. **Zach Cato** addressed concerns about the Townbranch Industrial development [timestamp: 00:00]. Cato raised issues about the preservation of the scenic corridor and the potential impact of the development on the floodplain. He requested that the meeting participants consider landscaping and timing issues related to the project. Both speakers focused on development-related concerns, with Clendenen emphasizing transportation and safety impacts while Cato highlighted environmental and aesthetic considerations for industrial development in sensitive areas. ## Contested Items Two development-related issues drew significant community opposition during the May 9, 2019 meeting. **Manchester Development Parking and Access** Community members raised substantial concerns about a Manchester Development project, specifically challenging the adequacy of proposed parking arrangements and questioning the safety of access routes to Manchester Street. Residents expressed opposition to the current development plan, citing these infrastructure and safety issues as primary concerns. The nature of the opposition suggests community members felt the proposed parking provisions were insufficient for the development's scale and that the planned access points posed potential safety hazards for both residents and existing traffic patterns. **Townbranch Industrial Scenic Corridor Impact** The second contested item involved community opposition to a Townbranch Industrial development, with residents expressing concerns about the project's potential impact on the local scenic corridor. Community members specifically raised issues about how the development would affect the area's visual character and questioned the adequacy of floodplain management plans associated with the project. The opposition centered on environmental and aesthetic concerns, suggesting residents were worried about both the immediate visual impact on the scenic corridor and longer-term environmental consequences related to floodplain management. Both contested items reflect broader community concerns about development impacts on neighborhood character, infrastructure adequacy, and environmental protection. The opposition in both cases came from community members rather than official bodies, indicating grassroots-level concerns about these proposed developments. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided data for these contested items.* ## Manchester Development (Distillery District East, Unit 1) (Distillery Heights) (PLN-MJDP-19-00021) [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission reviewed a proposed development plan for the Manchester Development project, also known as Distillery District East, Unit 1 or Distillery Heights. The application (PLN-MJDP-19-00021) sought to expand the area of an existing Adaptive Reuse Project and depict a new 9,300 square foot building with associated parking facilities. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin, John Woodall, and Chris Clendenen, who presented details of the development proposal and addressed questions from commission members. The primary concerns raised during the meeting centered on parking adequacy and vehicular access to Manchester Street. Commission members questioned whether the proposed parking allocation would be sufficient for the new building and discussed potential traffic impacts on the surrounding street network. The access points to Manchester Street were specifically scrutinized to ensure they would provide safe and efficient ingress and egress for the development. Despite these concerns being raised and discussed, the commission ultimately found the proposal acceptable. The development plan was approved, allowing the project to move forward with the expanded Adaptive Reuse Project area and the construction of the 9,300 square foot building as proposed. The approval represents progress for the Distillery District East development, which appears to be part of a larger adaptive reuse initiative in the area. The project will add commercial or mixed-use space to the district while working within the framework of existing adaptive reuse guidelines. ## Townbranch Industrial (FRM Lawson, LLC Parcel) [timestamp: 00:00] The Planning Commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-19-00023 for the Townbranch Industrial development on the FRM Lawson, LLC parcel. The proposal involves constructing six structures on the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Cheryl Gallt, Matt Carter, and Zach Cato, who presented details about the development plan and addressed commission concerns. The primary issues raised during the review centered on two main areas: the property's location within a scenic corridor and floodplain management considerations. Commission members expressed concerns about how the proposed development would impact the visual character of the scenic corridor and whether adequate measures were in place for proper floodplain management. In response to the scenic corridor concerns, the applicant demonstrated flexibility by agreeing to collaborate with the scenic committee on landscaping plans. This commitment to work with the scenic committee was viewed favorably by the commission as it showed the developer's willingness to address visual impact concerns through appropriate landscaping measures. The discussion appears to have been collaborative, with the applicant responsive to the commission's feedback and concerns. The agreement to coordinate with the scenic committee on landscaping helped address one of the key issues identified during the review process. Following the discussion and the applicant's commitment to work with the scenic committee, the Planning Commission approved the Townbranch Industrial development application. The approval allows the project to move forward with the understanding that landscaping plans will be developed in coordination with the appropriate scenic oversight committee. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-19-00020: WEBB PROPERTIES, UNIT 1, BLK A, OUTLOT 2 (REGENCY POINT) (AMD) to the May 23, 2019, meeting - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postpone PLAN 2005-302F: DENTON FARM, INC. UNIT 3 SECTION A to the May 27, 2019, meeting - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postpone PLN-FRP-19-00005: CROSSROADS CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMD) to the June 13, 2019, meeting - **Motion** — postponed (10-0): Postpone PLN-MJSUB-19-00006: TUSCANY, UNIT 15 to the June 13, 2019, meeting - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve consent agenda items excluding items D and F on page 4 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-19-00021: MANCHESTER DEVELOPMENT (DISTILLERY DISTRICT EAST, UNIT 1) (DISTILLERY HEIGHTS) (AMD) with conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-19-00023: TOWNBRANCH INDUSTRIAL (FRM LAWSON, LLC PARCEL) with conditions --- ## Full transcript Learn how to do some of the skills needed for if you don't already or you can hone those skills. If you are already a knitter or already a person working in fiber, you can go to some of the workshops and learn some of the new skills or better your skills. Or if you're a beginner, there are things for beginners as well. And then you can go inside and buy the beautiful yarns and beautiful felts and things that you would need to create these products. But if you're not a knitter or a person who works with yarn and fiber, we have something for everyone. There is, for kids, it's a great thing because of all of the animals. There is sheep shearing and they talk about the industry. There are wonderful food vendors on site. We have lots of demonstrations of spinning, carting, all of the processing that has to happen with the fiber once it comes off of the animal. So you get to see that full range of what it takes to get the yarns and the fibers that we use every day in our lives. So it's a wonderful educational opportunity for kids to come out and see this full range of activities. Saturday, May 18th from 9 to 5 p.m. and Sunday, May 19th from 10 to 4 p.m. The workshops take place all day Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. If you go to KentuckySheepandFiberFestival.com, you can sign up for the various workshops and see all that are happening. There's weaving, there's felting, there's knitting, there's basket making, there's all different kinds of workshops taking place on those two days. And then we run a shuttle from the fairgrounds to the stock. join us sometimes are they aware that the class is here yes that's great all right they are and um so and then finally right there i have gotten some of the most amazing thank you cards and i have to show you these are made hard this was made all right by one of the students from one of the first broadway buddies so you can see she recreated the red curtain and she also engineered so in the back there's a tassel but look the curtain rises and says thank you her group all wrote thank you notes oh don't you feel like you've from this organization really made a difference in those people's lives i she brought this to me and i cried i literally cried because i knew we had touched at least one student about what we do this is really ingenious isn't it smart yeah it is so a wonderful student came who had never been to the opera house and was that impressed so that's exactly what we're after all right and i have one more to show you yes please we did peter and the star catcher for one of our shows well this is and this beautiful piece of art was created by one of the students again as a thank you so that is beautifully done too all of the characters Oh, it's so interesting. And it's got glitter, and she's glued on the stars and the title and inside all the thank yous. Oh, so, thank you. So, again, we're serving youth and organizations who serve youth in our community. So, what's your target audience age, as it were? You know, each year we select a show, and then when we send out information to our groups, we let them know. This is targeted to upper elementary and middle school or maybe middle school, high school. It depends on the title. We've done Shrek. We've done the Miracle Worker. We've done Catch Me If You Can, which was about Frank Abingale. Yes, that's great. And his forgery. And we talked about that. So there are often life lessons incorporated into the title we choose. So is this 25 or 35 kids? We've grown. The first year it was 30. This year we have 120. Holy cow. So we're very excited about that and then I have some more really, really good news to share. Well, be brief. They're calling us here. Okay. The Opera House Fund in its generosity has offered to sponsor an additional performance next season dedicated to the buddies. And it will be a public performance because a part of what our underlying concept for education is we want you to come with the general public as well, buddies. And be part of that. We want you to be a part of that. So it's not a school show. It's an evening performance, but an additional performance. So thank you, Opera House Fund and Linda Carey and everyone who's been so instrumental in this. You're a treasurer for the Opera House and for Lexington, and this is a great program. We're glad to help hype it, and we look forward to covering further success. Yes. Thank you, Bill. Thank you. I appreciate you. It's a great pleasure. Thank you. Nice to be with you today. Thank you so much. Well, I'm Bill Farmer for Lexplorer. If there's an issue or a place that you'd like for us to look into, please let us know. We look forward to seeing you again. Thank you. of my life Thank you. Yeah, I'm sitting on this bar stool talking like a damn fool. Got the 12 o'clock news blues. And I'm giving up hope for the afternoon soaps and a bottle of cold brew. Is there any wonder I'm not crazy? Is there any wonder I'm safe at all? I'm so tired of losing I got nothing to do And all day to do it I go out cruising But I've no place to go And all night to get there Is it any wonder I'm not a criminal Is it any wonder I'm not a criminal Is there any wonder I've got too much time on my hands It's taking away with my sanity I've got too much time on my hands It's hard to believe such a calamity I've got too much time on my hands And it's taking away, taking away from me I'm on my head Taking away I don't know what to do I'm on my head Thank you. I can solve the world's problems without even trying I got dozens of friends and the fun never ends That is as long as I'm buying Is it any wonder I'm nothing more than Is it any wonder I'm nothing more Is it any wonder I've got too much time on my hands To take it away with my sanity I've got too much time on my hands It's hard to believe such a calamity I've got too much time on my hands And you're taking away, taking away from me Too much time on my hands Taking away Too much time on my hands I don't know what to do Too much time on my hands Too much time on my hands Taking away Too much time on my hands Too much time on my hands Too much time on my I am just a poor boy, though my story's seldom told. I squandered my resistance, for a pocket full of mumbles, such are promises. All eyes and chest Still the man hears What he wants to hear And disregards the rest When I left my home And my family Eyes no more than a boy In the company Strangers In the quiet of the railway station Let it be scared Laying low Seeking out the poor quarters Where the ragged people go Looking for the faces Only they would know La la la La la la la la la la la la la La la la la la la la la la la la Asking only workers' wages I come looking for a job But I get no offers Just to come home from the woods On 7th Avenue I do declare There were times when I was so lonesome I took some comfort in La la la la la la la la Thank you. Then I'm laying out my winter clothes And wishing I was gone Going home When the New York City winters are bleeding me Bleeding me Going home In the clearing stands a boxer and a fighter by his trade And he carries a reminder of every glove that laid him down Or cut him till he cried out in his anger and his shame I am leaving, I am leaving, the fighter still remains Thank you. Bye. Bye. Thank you. Ooh, you went too slow to learn, girl, but you never, never do before. Why, I ain't up for it, I'm not the same. Why, too much to make Fortnite, I'm not the same. I'm gonna get you, get you, get you. Oh, my God, no, dear. Oh, girl, sit yourself down, stay in your seat. So all you gotta do is repeat after me. A, B, C, E, there's one, two, three. I'll see you, but let's go. Bring me A, B, C. One, two, three. Baby, you and me, girl. E, P, S, one, two, three. I'll see you, but let's go. Bring me A, B, C. One, two, three. Baby, you and me, girl. Let me go. Little bit. Come on, let me go. Little bit. I'm gonna teach you how to sing it out. Come on, come on, come on. Let me show you what it's all about. Three, take a bite and we'll take you. All the branches on the learning tree. Listen to me, Bob, I wrote the love that we did, girl. Education ain't complete. T-T-T-T, she's just gonna show you. Show, she's just gonna show you. How to get an A. Tell me, you have a good. Listen to me, baby, that's all you gotta do. Oh, ABC, it's easy as one, two, three. A sample as no, baby. ABC, one, two, three, baby, you and me, girl. Oh, it seems that it's like a thing that you need. Sing a simple melody. That's how easy love can be. That's how easy love can be. Sing a simple melody. One, two, three, you and me. Get out, girl. I think I love you. No. Get out, girl. Show me what you can do. Shake it, shake it, baby. Come on now. Shake it, shake it, baby. Ooh, ooh. Shake it, shake it, baby. Hey. One, two, three, baby. Ooh, ooh. Baby, see it, baby. Nah, nah. Don't ring me, baby. Now that's how easy love can be. Baby, see it, see it. And I can't take that, baby. Take a sip, baby. Baby, see it. That's how easy love can be. I'm going to teach you all to sing it out. Come on, come on, come on, let me show you what it's all about. Baby, see, see, think it's like I ain't got to say. Take a simple melody. That's how easy love can be. I'm going to teach you all to sing it out, sing it out. Oh, oh, oh, oh, baby. Baby, see, think it's like I ain't got to say. Take a simple melody. There must be lights burning brighter somewhere Got to be birds flying higher in the sky More blue If I can dream Of a better land Where all my brothers Walk hand in hand Tell me why Oh why Oh why Can't my dream Come true Oh why There must be peace And understanding sometime strong winds of promise that will blow away the doubt and fear if I can dream of a warmer sun where hope keeps shining on everyone tell me why oh why oh why won't that sun appear We're lost in a cloud With too much rain We're trapped in a world That's troubled with pain But as long as a man Has the strength to dream He can redeem his soul and fly Deep in my heart There's a trembling question Still I am sure That the answer's gonna come Somehow out there in the dark There's a beckoning candle And while I can think While I can talk While I can stand While I can walk While I can dream Please let my dream come true Right now Right now Right now Right now Right now This over The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. I will call the Urban County Planning Commission to order May the 9th, 2019. Welcome to those of you who are in the audience. Welcome to our staff again, and thank you again for your support. And I'd like to welcome all my colleagues, and thank you all as well. We have no minutes to approve, so we'll move immediately to postponements or withdrawals. Hi, good afternoon. I'm Adam Bender with CMW. we would like to request postponement for two weeks of plan MJDP-19-20 that would put us at May 23rd we're still trying to work through some issues with the page three I'm sorry my colleague item in C on page three we're still trying to work with water quality and the division of engineering to work out some issues but we're making a lot of progress so hopeful that I'll have good news for you on May 23rd. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience like to address this particular recommendation for postponement? Anyone on the Commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 1920 until 5-23-19, two-week postponement. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, second by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLNMJDP 1920 Web Properties Unit 1, Block A, outlot, until May the 23rd of two weeks. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Postponement granted. Any other postponements? Yes, sir. I believe so. Mr. Denton, John, I mean, Mr. Barlow, do you wish to postpone or go forward? Unfortunately, Greg Hamm, who is on the board. Excuse me, sir, would you, for the record. Okay, John Barlow, DeLonga State's Development. He thought we had everything worked out. He can't show up. If you look on the second page of the handout, there's been some conditions put on that I can't speak for him. They're ready to go. They're ready to plant trees tomorrow, but I don't want to – I want staff's consent. So if I don't have that at this point, I can't speak for Greg Hamm. I guess I need to postpone. Which, is that Tuscany? Mr. Chairman, if I may, on page 5 of your agenda under commission items. Oh, okay. Page 5. It is Plan 2005-302F Denton Farm, Unit 3, Section A. Yes, this is a waiver request that was to be brought before you today, and that's what Mr. Barlow is referring to. Okay, thank you. I'd like to proceed but you know if it's not with staff's approval I'm not I'd rather so how long how long do you wish to postpone I'm sorry I wear hearing aids I can hear what you're saying how long do you wish to postpone for what period two weeks two weeks okay is anyone in the audience would like to speak to this postponement recommendation. Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Yeah you can do that too. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move for a two-week postponement of PLEN 2005-302F Denton Farm for two-week postponement to the May 23rd meeting. Okay it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, second by Ms. Karen Mundy that we postpone Plan 2005-302F Denton Farm, Incorporated, Unit 3, Section A for two weeks or until May the 23rd. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, thank you. Thank you. So you've got it. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, staff has two items to bring to your attention. The first item is on page one of your agenda. It is a final subdivision plan, FRP 19-5, Crossroads Christian Church amended. The applicant's representative has requested a one-month postponement. What's the date on that? Is that June 13th? June 13th. Yes, okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this recommendation for postponement? Anyone on the commission? We're ready for motion. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Chairman, I move for a motion for postponement of one month of FRP 19-5 Crossroads Christian Church. Okay. Mr. Brewer made a motion. To postpone, Mr. Graham Pohl seconds. And the motion is to postpone PLN FRP 19-5 Crossroads Christian Church for one month or until June the 13th. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staff has one more plan to bring to your attention. This is on page two under preliminary subdivision plans. It is item A. It is Major Subdivision Plan 19-6, Tuscany Unit 15. And, again, the applicant is requesting a one-month postponement. And Mr. Cayley sends his regrets that he could not be here today. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this recommendation for a postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement of Plan MJ-SUB 19-6, Tuscany Unit 15, for one month until June the 13th. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Ornn, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we postpone PLNM-JSUB 19-6, Tuscany Unit 15, for one month or until June the 13th. Any other discussion on the motion? hearing now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens okay that motion carries as well okay any other postponements withdrawals okay if not do we have a consent consent oh this wait consent agenda items thank you chairman Wilson we do have a number of items today that qualify for the consent agenda and they are all listed as development plans there are actually five and i will read through those and then ask if anyone in the audience or any member of the planning commission or an applicant would choose to have one of those items considered for further discussion so we'll start on the consent agenda page two item a pln mjdp 19-16 ramsey sullivan property unit 3 also known as kearney hall this is an amended final development plan for property located at 2750 meadow suite lane the next item appears on page three item b of your agenda pln mjdp 19-18 for interstate park owns owens excuse me boonesboro manor lot one and this is also a amended final development plan for property located at 5350 eighth and boonesboro road the next item appears on page four and it's item d pln mjdp 19-21 for manchester development also known as the distillery district east unit one and distillery heights this is also a final development plan that's been being amended today for property located at 856 886 890 and 896 manchester street i would note that this item does require an affidavit of a sign posting that needs to be provided by the applicant today the next item appears on page four item e pln mjdp 1922 for pinnacle lot three also a final development plan amendment for property located at 1093 1097 and 1099 duval street and last also appearing on page four this is item f pln mjdp 19-23 for town branch industrial frm lawson llc parcel property with an address of 404 alexandria drive so those five items do qualify for the consent agenda and we'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have any of these items considered for further discussion mr clinton and can you tell us which item thank you miss wade it would be item page four item d manchester development that's pln mj dp 19-0021 okay thank you there are other items mr cato good afternoon request discussion on page four item f MJDP 19-23. Thank you. So with those two items needing further discussion, there are now three items that remain for the commission to consider as a consent item. Okay. We'll be willing to entertain a motion to accept the three items that have been identified, possibly for our consent agenda. Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move approval of the consent agenda, three items, with the exception of the D and F on page four. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that we accept the consent agenda with the three items identified, with the exception of item D on page 4 as well as item F on page 4. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. So we will hear, and I think that would be the first thing that we will hear. Yes, our first item then will be on page 4, item D. Yeah, it will be item D. Okay. To our commission members, normally at this time I would go ahead on with the caller bonds, but we've got an issue there, so we're going to save that to last because staff needs to address a particular issue with one of the caller bonds items, so we'll wait. Thank you. Can't move it along like I used to. Thank you. You know I'm going to have to take a couple extra minutes now because Kevin's up here. Oh, they did. Okay. We can't hold up on that. Okay. If you could, just before you get ready, I will call your attention to the call of bonds. Since that Denton's Farm agenda item has been postponed, we can go ahead and work on the release of call of bonds with the exception of the Denton Farms piece. You can also? Okay, then we'll go back to the release of the call of bonds then for all of the items identified on the sheet that you have. Yeah, if we could very quickly. Motion? Just release the call of bonds. Mr. Chair, I'll move for release of the call of bonds. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we have the release of the call of bonds. Any other discussion on that motion? Although, well, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that takes care of that. Now, Mr. Martin, thank you for your... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By the way, the time that we took to do that is counted against you, so... We've got to account for the time. I am feeling very loquacious today. Well, don't feel too loquacious. Okay, Mr. Martin, move along. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are moving to the top of page four it is a major development plan 19-21 the manchester development district it is the distillery district east and it's unit one here is oliver lewis way in this location with the beginning of manchester street this is as stated This is the distillery district east, which is this entire area that you see before you. This was the original distillery district. The west, where we spent an awful lot of time in the last few years, came somewhat later. And this was part of the original proposal. You recently approved these townhouses, which are under construction, and they were part of the original distillery district area. Subsequently, a small area was added to the overall district, and that's not an uncommon practice. And that is what is before you today as well. This corner was not originally part of the district, but it is, of course, contiguous. And it has been staff's practice to recommend, and this body's practice as well, to accept additions to a district that's already been established and the conditions for that adaptive use to have been met. What you see before your day is a proposal for a 9,300-square-foot building here on the corner, four stories. It's a multi-use building, but that doesn't include any residential. That is professional office, retail, and a restaurant. They are proposing large sidewalk areas in the front and a patio. Here you have their parking that is being proposed. As you all are aware, there's a reduction available to the parking in an adaptive reuse area, and they are providing 31 spaces, which are required. They are taking advantage of a bicycle rack reduction. The racks are in the general area in this part of the plan. They are proposing some items that do complement and are part of your adaptive reuse requirements. And that is a public art area as well as the bike racks, which is alternative transportation. And those are always important items when a property gets incorporated into the adaptive reuse area. The plan is, again, this is it. It's a small development, 9,300 square feet, four stories with parking. Access is being proposed off of Manchester in this location, and, of course, Tar Street is here. It has basic certifications that you can see before you for a development plan. There is also one condition, number 10, I'll bring to your attention, and that is you are required to make a finding that this plan does comply with Article 8-2104 of the zoning ordinance, and that's the adaptive reuse criteria. Normally, staff does provide you with a memo. We neglected to get that memo to you today. We can tell you that we do believe that this development does comply. We felt like it had complied to be incorporated regardless of the extra steps, which we certainly appreciate with the public art, the pedestrian facilities, the whole orientation to the street. These are things that are very conducive to an adaptive reuse project. So staff is comfortable in recommending that finding to you today. At the subdivision committee, there was an extensive discussion about this project, And it's centered primarily around number 11 that you can see on your agenda, which is resolve the proposed access to Manchester Street. Now, as those of you who attended the subdivision committee are well aware, that discussion was wide-ranging and covered several issues. Again, it's in here off of Manchester Street near an existing apron. Initially, from technical review and what was discussed at your subdivision committee was a concern about access possibly being in this area of tar. Again, to reduce conflicts along Manchester Street. And again, this is a signalized intersection with crosswalks. As you all were aware, those types of conflicts are always a concern. And that discussion on access led to parking compliance. It led to pedestrian safety, always a concern. And as I stated, we covered those issues quite extensively on this development. And we talked about with the committee about the future trail, the park, and again, pedestrian and biking and those types of things that are being encouraged in the area. It was ultimately determined that we would resolve that access to Manchester Street. That's a close-up. And again, here's your building, green space, open area, public art area. Here's where they're presenting themselves to the street with a patio area and a wide sidewalk. Here's your parking. Get a much better view of that. There's a large grade change as you go up tar. And that was part of the issue that the applicant presented to the committee. That's the overall picture. Townhouses, of course, are under construction. And there's your, well, there you go. That's where I wanted to go. You see the grade as you go up TAR? And that retaining wall, and this is where the parking will be, and the building will be just to the left of that in this view. So, again, it was the grade change that created a significant problem for the applicant in bringing access off of TAR. are and that access would also impact potentially the parking layout and the number of parking spaces and so as you all are well aware parking has become a large issue in the west so it was something that was discussed with your committee because again we would want to stay ahead of any parking issues that may develop in the distillery district east and that was really the the subject to that discussion and the result you can see by your agenda the subdivision committee did recommend approval with number 11 again being resolved that proposed access to Manchester Street and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff any questions for mr. Martin yes mr. Owens thank you mr. Martin, as to number 11, is there a proposal in place to resolve that access? You're saying that there's a significant grade change. Is there any other proposal on the table to resolve that other than? We have had no further discussion since subdivision committee, Mr. Owens. Okay. And again, that grade difference is the primary challenge that they face. Okay. Any other questions from our commission members? I have one. What's the staff's recommendation on this? Staff's recommendation. The staff had originally recommended postponement after tech committee. They submitted a revised plan, and staff had recommended approval to the subdivision committee with, again, a discussion item of access to Manchester. And that discussion led to all the other connected and inherent issues of pedestrian safety and those similar issues that we've dealt with in the distillery district. I got you. So this will be interesting then because the staff's recommended approval, subcommittees recommended approval. Let's hear what the applicant's got to say as to why. He's got the applicant. good afternoon ladies and gentlemen my name is John Woodall I'm here on behalf of the applicant today very much appreciate your time and consideration of this application and staffs hard work as as always as mr. Martin alluded this plan is recommended for approval we will agree to all the conditions the last issue there that has to do with that access point. The other issue, I believe Mr. Phillips, who's an engineer on the project, he passed around some photographs for you that that should be in front of you that depict very clearly the grade differential. The other issue, if you look at the photographs, you'll see two utility poles there. Those would have to be relocated. That's a substantial expense and just a logistical nightmare about how that would happen so that is why it makes all the sense in the world to keep the access point where it is which is right down there on old Frankfurt across from across from the music hall how properties currently accessed do you have any questions for me on that that seemed mr. Owens like that was kind of right at the top of Mr. Penn has a question. Mr. Penn. Mr. Woodall, how far is it from the intersection back to where your access point is? Let me defer to Mr. Phillips on that. Kevin? I'm Kevin Phillips with Interest Engineering. I did not actually measure this ahead of time, but if the entrance is 24, so it's about, we're probably 35 to 40 feet from the center of the intersection back to the edge of the entrance. From Tar Street. From Tar, that's what it's called. Yes, sir. Right. How far from Tar up the other way? In other words, where Tar comes out going east. Let's see here. That median is about 80 feet to where the dumpster is shown there, which presumably would be where the drive aisle would exit, other than the power pole. The power pole shows up on the enlarged copy you have. You see the power pole. It's right in the middle of where that drive aisle would extend out to tar. What would be right through the dumpster and then right behind the dumpster is that power pole and four anchor lines that are shown there. I was just trying to get an idea because we're coming out on, Ural's projection is to come out on Manchester's. Yes, Mr. Penn, that's correct. Yes. The existing entrance is closer to the intersection with Tarr. You can see the turn in kind of going through the three where it says South 6213. There's a line pointed toward that three. That's the left-hand side of the existing entrance. You can probably see it on the aerial photo as well as anything. You can see sort of the bluish-gray pavement that is underneath of our new 24-foot-wide entrance. You can see that entrance has shifted over about 9 feet or 10 feet closer to Tarr than where we are proposing it now. The new location is farther from tar and it is directly across the street instead of offset from the entrance into the Manchester Music Hall parking lot. All right. Thank you. Also with me today, ladies and gentlemen, is Phil Holbeck, which is the developer representative, and he has a brief presentation just to add on that will further describe the project, if we may. Okay. Brief meaning how long is brief? uh in honor of mr pack three minutes oh well in that case come right on we all know you thank you very much my name is phil holaback i'm the owner's representative for this project just a quick overview of the project as you know I've been involved in trails since moving to here. Legacy Trail was a big project of mine. And so right now we've got $40 million of projects under development that are on trails. We believe in trails. We believe in urban infill. That's what we focus on. We believe in maximum parking requirements, more than minimum parking requirements. We believe in slowing traffic whenever we can. This project, Manchester Markets, the visibility is great. It's at the corner. as you know of Oliver Lewis Way and Manchester Street. It's across from Manchester Music Hall and we believe it's a great site because when Town Branch Commons is done in the Lexington Center parking lots can have these great views of the park. We've got 80 percent of this project pre-leased. What we really like about this project is the mix of uses at different times of day. In the morning on the first floor we've got a coffee shop, there's a hair salon, we We have half of that space remaining to be leased. On the second floor, there's a WeWork concept, which is like a shared office concept. A lot of young professionals love this, where they will rent not just an individual office, but they actually will hot desk it for an hour or two at a time. You'll see this concept really doing well in places like Toronto and Chicago. Then we've got a top floor restaurant that's secured that I think is going to work very, very well. We're hoping to break ground in the summer or fall and have a 12-month construction time so that we'd be done in summer or fall of next year. To give you a quick overview of the renderings of the project, EOP is the architect. I think it's just a great-looking building. We've made sure that it includes, as Mr. Martin mentioned, space for public art. Whether you see the public art, we've put it at Main and Rose or other projects. It's something we really believe in. Bike facilities are important to us. It's not just bike facilities as in bike racks. We've even got showers in the building for the bikers. And the reason that's important, when you look at the stats for millennials, millennials drive 27% fewer miles than the generations above them. And that's where we're headed as a society. And so that's why we really believe in having reduced parking. parking. You're not going to see me developing projects like a Lowe's on Richmond Road that has acres and acres of parking. That's just not our style. We think this is appropriate. We think this helps the residential in the area because people live in urban areas when they can walk to things like coffee shops and hair salons and offices and restaurants. And so we see this as very, very complimentary to a project like Distillery Heights. This is a view from Oliver Lewis Way. You can see the public space that we've got there for public art, for sidewalk cafes, and so on. And then up above, this is the last slide I'll show you and then I'll stop. This shows you the top floor restaurant, which from the outdoor patio corner gives you some nice views of the park, and from the other corner gives you some great views down Manchester to the Distillery district. So we're very happy to present this project on behalf of the owners. It fits within our mission. I think it fits within where planning for our city and other progressive cities are headed in terms of urban infill. And so thanks for giving me the chance to take a couple minutes. Okay, thank you. And we may have other questions for you too, if not. But are there any other Questions for the applicant? Not at this time, so thank you. Is there anyone here from the neighborhood like to speak for or against this project? Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commission members, and staff. I am Chris Clendenin from the law firm of Murphy and Clendenin. Kato is going to help me pass out an outline of my presentation. I've got a very quick PowerPoint, Mr. Penn. It will only take a couple of minutes. I represent Distillery Heights, LLC. I'm loaded up here. Okay. And those are the women who own the townhomes adjacent to this project. So you're probably asking why are they opposing this. Well, opposing isn't necessarily the word. We have a concern and an objection to the plan as rendered, and I want to discuss that. They are very much in favor of this development. They like the design. They like what EOP has done. They have a vested interest as you can imagine in this part of the distillery district succeeding. The biggest concern that they have is what Mr. Martin addressed and what was addressed at the subdivision committee, which is the public safety, the parking, and the access. That's what I want to discuss and talk about here today using my time. time. That's an aerial view of the proposed site. You've seen that. This is a parking lot across the street for the music hall. It has lots of parking spaces. That's great, except you can't park there unless you're going to the music hall. That's the most parking that's there now and i could be wrong about this and i'm sure the applicant will correct me if i'm if i am stating this wrong i do not think the applicant and the owner of this project universally is all in common but i do think there is some common ownership we'll come back to this that's the other additional parking that's there now there's two lots both one across from the manchester music hall the others across from the parking lot one also serves the manchester music hall the other lot that i will designate here as A serves the shops or the retail space for what they call the Grand Reserve. Now, under the plan, Lot B is going to be absorbed in this development. It's going to take up, and I could be wrong with my numbers, but I've been there. I've looked at it, maybe 12 to 16 parking spaces that are currently available. And I think, and if you've never been down there, parking already is a problem. Public safety is an issue. Traffic is an issue. This development, no matter how well it meets the criteria for the ordinance for adaptive reuse at this time, it's already an issue. But the spaces that are in what I'm designating as lot B is going to be taken up and made a part of the 34 spaces they're providing in their development. So we're gaining spots to park, but we're also losing. There's a very small net increase. Lot A has maybe 28 to 30 spaces. they're leasing in order to make their number and as part of their overall plan they're leasing eight of those spaces. So that's another hit to the available existing parking there. So the numbers that I have are this of the lot A and I'll go back to that lot A lot B. The 28 existing parking spaces, eight of those spaces will be taken up by the applicant through a lease, reducing the existing spaces down to 20. Lot B, once you go back to that, lot B is going to be completely absorbed by the development, where they have the 34 spaces. So out of the existing 40 spaces, we're going to lose 20. We're going to have a net increase of 14 parking spaces to service this new development that under normal circumstances, If it wasn't in adaptive reuse, we'd call for 68 additional parking spaces. And this is the concern. It's the only concern with the development. Now, we've reached out to the applicant, trying to engage them, because, again, as I said, my clients want this development to succeed. They want to succeed. They want everybody that's involved down in the distillery district, both east and west, to succeed. It's in their best interest. Now, the only thing that they're asking is this. Instead of approving this plan today, that the commission asks the applicant to go back with the staff and try to address these concerns if you agree that there's an issue here. I think there is. I don't think it's feasibly possible for an additional 14 spaces to serve this development. And I understand the applicant has said that there's different hours for the things, but if you have employees, people going to shop, people going to get coffee, people going to get their hair done, people going to work, and then people going to eat in the restaurant, there's going to be some overlap during the day. I don't know where all these people are going to part. Now, I understand there's going to be some walking, there's bike use. Great. I just don't think that's going to solve this issue. And we have already had problems with parking on the west side, on the west end of this. We don't want it to bleed over into here. I hope that you all at least consider what I've said and consider what my clients' concerns are. Again, they don't want to oppose the development. They want this issue addressed. They think it's in the best interest overall for the project and for the city. There's development plans. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Okay. Any questions? Mr. Nickel? All right. I do have a quick question. Yes, sir. Do your clients have the ability to self-park on their site right now? I would assume so since it's an approved development plan. Well, they do. Part of their development is gated. There is driveways and covered garages for some portion of that. There is also limited parking on tar trays, but it's one side of the street. Currently, there's not parking going up from that grade. It's no parking because of the construction. But each of these townhomes will have a driveway and a garage, but there's not really space or approval in the plan for a bunch of off-street parking because it doesn't exist. I don't know if that answers your question. Not really. So your property has the ability to self-park. You met the requirements for the development plan. But what you're saying is some of the shared parking on Tar Street is not going to be available to you all because of a development down the street? Well, no. Tar Trace, the parking that will be available on Tar, will be one side of the street. whether my clients residents or guests are using it or not or the applicants patrons are using it but there's really not enough work to accommodate this either way i mean in my estimation now maybe traffic engineering should weigh in on this and give you a better answer i'm not an engineer never was good at math or counting that's why i'm a lawyer i thought that'd be funny i'm sorry it's not that i'm being cagey or i just really i don't know the answer to your question other than to tell you that the tar trace is not limited to just specifically guests or residents of my client's development. I mean, it would be street parking and regulated by the city like it normally would be, as far as I know, going forward. Right now, there's construction, and it's blocked off. Okay. Yes, if you'd like to speak to this particular plan. And we may come back with you with some additional questions once we get through the audience portion of it. I just wanted to address one thing that should make the prior speaker very happy. Lot A has nothing to do with us. I don't know where that information came from. There's no eight spaces we're leasing or anything. I'm a pretty good math guy and I couldn't follow that math. There's no eight spaces on lot A that we're using. Our 34 spaces are all on our site plan, as you saw. We are not going to be going and taking any spaces from the gated residential community. Nobody's going to be able to get into that gated residential community. So I think what you heard was incorrect information. I just wanted to correct that for you. Thanks. I got a question because that's not I didn't understand it the way you're saying that the way I understood what he was saying was that the spaces that are there now are being used by Manchester and they won't be available afterwards and so that that's the question because there's those spaces are being used right now they're there in the neighborhood and and I've seen times when there's parking all up the hill. So lot A has nothing to do with our development plan. I'm talking about the lot the spaces in on your lot B. Yeah lot B that site is is vacant at most times there's a few cars there during the day there are whatever it is 12 spaces maybe now we'll have 34 spaces on that site when we're done most of our uses our daytime uses as you know with the retail in the office we'll have a restaurant I can't speak to what Manchester music call may or may not do we can look at patrolling our lot or putting stickers for the users there so that Manchester music hall isn't using our lot if that's a need but I just wanted to correct that as far as lot a goes and we can talk about the other stuff. You guys do own the lot across the street, right? We do not. Separate ownership groups. Is there some, I mean, Manchester's using those spaces now, right? So there's some kind of shared agreement now? Manchester Music Hall, is that what you're asking? Is Manchester Music Hall use these spaces? Right, because those spaces are going to be gone essentially to them afterwards, I think is his argument. Yeah, and so the Manchester Coffee Company has recently gone in, maybe a third of the way down that white building that you see from Manchester Music Hall. Manchester Coffee Company will be moving into this building. So they're using those spaces now, and pedestrians are crossing the street. They'll continue to use those spaces, but they'll be in our building. So I'm not sure that's necessarily a net increase. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question. So the Manchester Music Hall is not using these spaces, is that what you're saying? I don't know that for certain one way or another and that's not being cagey, I just don't know that answer. I do know that the Manchester Coffee Company people are using it. Okay. I'm sorry, I don't have that. Okay. Does the representative like to speak to, this is kind of the rebuttal phase so you have a chance to clean up. Last thing I'll say, thanks once again for consideration of the plan. It sounds to me, what I heard was, and I know Mr. Clendenin's clients, and I can understand what they're saying, but at the end of the day, what I heard was they're for the development. There's no question about that. What they're concerned about, it sounds to me like, is that when this development comes online, that somehow folks that can't find a place to park in our lot or in Manchester Music Hall are somewhere, how are they going to find their way to their gated lots or their gated community there? And I just don't think that's realistic. I mean, what we've had to do is meet the ordinance in terms of our parking on site, which we have done, and, like I said, willing to meet the rest of the conditions. That's really the best we can do. Past that, meeting with the adjacent owner and addressing their concerns and talking about how we go forward, that's operational. And I know Mr. Hollaback will be certainly willing to do that as they go forward because clearly having a sustainable and successful residential development next to his commercial development obviously is in both parties' best interest. So I have no doubt that they'll work together going forward here. But in terms of this plan, we're recommended for approval today, and we would appreciate your vote in that regard. Thank you. Thank you. Will, you can sit there. The gentleman who, yes, if you'd like to have a response to. I definitely would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I did not say that their group had anything to do with Lot A, and I'll go back to what I'm classifying as Lot A. What I'm saying is that lot's there available to service the existing area. Okay? Now, I looked on their development plan, and on their development plan, it says to me, we're leasing eight spaces. If that's not true, then I'm mistaken, but it's on their development plan. Okay, so that leads me to believe that since it's on their plan, it's saying that they're leasing eight spaces as part of their effort to make their number and meet the ordinance on parking requirement. I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to account for that in the overall parking equation in terms of available spaces. Number two, I think that I have this photo. Okay. The one on the left, that's that space that I said is Lot B. Okay? Parking for Manchester Music Hall patrons only. That's what it's used for now. It's going to be absorbed in the development. It's not available now, but it's going to be taken up in the development. The lot A I'm referring to is the one where the sign is that says parking for patrons of Grand Reserve. And I do want to address this. Mr. Woodall is trying to give you an interpretation of what my client's concerns are. I appreciate his effort in doing that. That's really not the concern. The traffic isn't going to be, additional traffic down to this district is not going to be able to get into the gated community. That's not their concern. Their concern is this. Part, the number of people coming down there where there's already an issue with a very busy intersection and then people going across Manchester from lot to lot because they can't find a place to park can create a pedestrian traffic safety hazard. That's number one. Number two, if there's no place to park, people will get frustrated and not go down there. Anecdotally, I can tell you a story. I was over there in the Grand Reserve Music Hall or the banquet area, the banquet hall, which is right next to the music hall, last month for a meeting, for a lawyer's meeting, a CLE. And there was probably 35 lawyers there. We started in the morning at 8.30, which you wouldn't expect to be a huge crowd. start we're on 10 minutes into the thing the speaker who's hosting the event who's the president of the bar association subchapter has to get on there and make an announcement and said if you're parked in the lot next to the music hall you have to move your car or you're going to be towed so we have to interrupt this half of the people in the place parked there they had to go get their cars took them 25 the collective group 25 minutes to come back to the meeting because they couldn't find a place to park the only place that was really available was what i have designated on here is lot a and i understand that they have nothing to do with lot a i never said that they did okay that only has so many spaces and again the overall concern that they have that my clients have is not that their development is going to cause people to park in my client's area it's the overall parking public safety traffic issue that was brought up again and subdivision committee, though they have the same concern. Do you have any other questions? What we'll do is the staff gets a chance to make their final pitch, and then we'll leave it open for questions, and we'll have another dialogue, because we're discussing up here, we're still a little bit confused, and since I'm not a part of the subdivision part, I'm very much confused both with the math and the rationale. Staff, do you wish to say anything now? Okay, you don't? But okay, then we got a lot of questions and I'm going to start Graham. I'd like to make an observation and I might be wrong on this, but it sounds like the complaint has to do with the needs of Manchester Music Hall, not the needs of the applicant. And I think the applicant has covered their needs amply. And I want to draw the attention of my fellow commission members to the site plan if you look at the manchester music hall property on the site plan you'll notice that there are four traffic islands shown and there's a considerable amount of i don't mean traffic islands i mean parking islands with considerable amount of parking associated with each of those in and if you look at the site plan you'll notice that there are only actually two of those parking islands that are constructed and the manchester music hall folks own that entire piece of property right up to our oliver lewis way and they simply haven't developed the parking that they can develop between those two uh parking islands and oliver lewis way so you know first of all i think it's irrelevant to be worrying about manchester music hall's parking problems when we're talking about a completely different ownership and a different site and secondly I think it's pretty evident that that the Manchester Music Hall has lots of options if they ever really want to deal with a parking problem. Mr. Pan. If I'm not mistaken and Mike and he those of you that were in subdivision playing we're talking about parking and the issue that we talked about mostly about was access to Manchester Street. And my question is, when you all left there from the subdivision committee, you all mean in the applicant, you're supposed to get with parking or to get with traffic and staff and come up with this access issue. And I haven't heard a word about access to Manchester Street. I've heard a lot more about everything else except the access to Manchester Street and to me the issue unless I'm wrong subdivision committee members the issue with us most of the time is whether we're going to grant access to Manchester Street or not and I don't want this to go too far before we discuss that issue because it is the issue that really and truly was driving our discussion. Mr. Penn I'm going to call on you to ask another question of the staff related to what type of is this a you know what the plan is yeah the question begs is this final development plans this preliminary plan that's what I thought and so if this is a final development plan if we don't resolve it today when's it gonna be resolved most likely the resolution unless the applicant or traffic engineering is willing to bend is what you see today that that is the most likely resolution is access to manchester street so that's access i'm willing to let anyone contradict what i just said i want to get discussion back to where i think the relevancy is the division of planning's preference is that it not access manchester street because of the proximity between tar trace and their entrance that's the most safe well i thought i would be on i didn't think i was hallucinating during the during the we also understand the grade differential i understand that but i to me we're not addressing that subject we're addressing everything else that to me is wind addressing compared to the real issue here well now i'm going to build on that a little bit uh again i'm not a part of the subdivision but the question is have you it says here on the it you says resolve the proposed access to manchester street from the applicant's perspective. Have you all met to do that? To resolve that issue? We have not met beyond the committee and technical meetings that we've had. I'd let traffic engineering speak for themselves, but I believe at technical my recollection was the statement was if there is an entrance on to Manchester this is the best location and Casey Calquer can speak to that directly. Ms. Calquer is standing just chomping at the bit to get up here. Okay so we did discuss we haven't had further discussions since then but prior to sub we had discussed the entrance to manchester um in my perfect world the entrance would be from tar trace but in this situation the applicant is saying if they enter off tar trace then they will lose i think they said five or six parking spaces that in itself doesn't totally changed my mind but there is a thought process of tar trace dead ends and it does not dead end in a full cul-de-sac at the end of tar trace there is some kytc right away and so when that property was developed when the property the townhome property was developed we weren't able to get that full turnaround. So there is some, I wouldn't say concern, but if I encourage people to enter off Tar Trace and they can't get into that lot, then they're going to the end of Tar Trace and we don't have a good proper termination. You know, it's just kind of one of those existing conditions that makes me have less heartburn for leaving the entrance onto Manchester Street it does align with the other side of the street so it will function sort of as an intersection in my perfect world i'd ask you to put it off tar trace but to be honest with you due to the elevation of the site and losing the parking along with i don't know that i really want to encourage people to go to the end of tar trace and try to turn around In this situation, I think traffic would compromise and leave the entrance where they have it shown, aligned with the other side of the street and farthest from the Oliver Lewis-Manchester intersection. Ms. Calker, you just lost me, but that's okay. Oh, sorry. Mr. Brewer. Well, I see that Mike and Frank both have comments or questions also. So mine's a broader comment and does not have anything to do with what went on in subdivision. So I'll defer to you two if you want to finish this thought, and then I'll come back to mine. Thank you. Yes, earlier my question as to was there a resolution, any sort of resolution for this proposed access, when I asked Mr. Martin, was just that. You know, he didn't offer one. Nobody else seems to be offering one. I was going to ask the engineer and Mr. Indrus, you know, if it's really feasible to get down into that lot off of Tarr Street, which is a four-foot elevation change. I think Ms. Cocker just said that you'd be losing and she's going to be ultimately okay, not in her perfect world, but we don't always live in a perfect world. So I'm okay with doing this. I would suggest just to delete number 11 altogether. My only second, it's just a comment, which I can save for later. Okay. We'll just see if Ms. Penn. Yeah, while I have traffic here, so we know this isn't a perfect world, but 80 feet between tar and their entrance will work for you? Yes, because it puts it, I think I measured about 250, 300 feet from the signal at Oliver Lewis, and that would be the primary importance. I was just trying to tie up loose ends from our subject. Yes. And I think ultimately I was hoping that the applicant would be able to come up with a design to be able to enter off tar trays and not lose the parking spaces. But we have went way off discussing the demand for parking, which kind of leads traffic even more to say, I think it would be a larger crutch to the project if they lost the six parking spaces. Anyone else? Any other questions? Are you ready to move on to comments? Because I'm ready to make a comment. Well, yeah, we're in comments section now. Go ahead. okay so one of the things that well several things i wanted to draw my my colleagues view back to is um something mr hollaback said what we've done following development along the trail uh what we've done downtown has been truly extraordinary in my opinion and it needs to be continued if there's areas that we need to make accommodation um i think this is a perfect example of accommodation that's being made. You're targeting a community of people who don't drive as much. A lot of them don't own cars. They ride their bikes or they Uber or Lyft or one other ride share or another or they walk. But I think eventually we're gonna get to a point, particularly in the infill and redevelopment type downtown areas, that the parking number requirements are just gonna have to change. because they're inappropriate for what's going on right now. I mean, if I go downtown and I'm gonna have a glass of wine at dinner, I don't drive, period. I take an Uber. And I'm sure Frank and I race our bikes down there a lot. But anyway, to me, I think it's a beautiful plan. It furthers an area that is developing into quite an attraction. And I think it's an enhancement for the city. I think it's a draw to the type of young professionals that we need to be drawing into this area. And whenever everybody else is ready, I've got a motion ready to roll. Let's have some more comment. Mr. Berkeley? A little more comment. Okay, well, go ahead. The one thing I noticed from his presentation was that, and I don't think this is that uncommon, but every lot had a sign on it and said no parking unless you're going here. So that to me, and just being familiar with the area, there is a parking problem in that area. I hear what you're saying about the possibility of Manchester developing some more parking. What I'm hearing and a possible maybe solution, I don't know if this is possible or not, but we're talking about 12 existing spaces. Is it possible to offer to at least allow that building and those patrons to park across the street? maybe limited to the 12 spaces you know as some kind of a thing you know shared parking use um you know and and and you know address it that way if if if there's if this timing thing if people are using it at different times why would that not work so i think mr berkeley brings up a good point about parking in general that's it's really i think an operational issue which is not my understanding of what today's meeting is about, but I'll give you guys a great example that builds on what you were saying. My office is at the Vine Center downtown. We use the Hilton's parking garage. And I think there are seven different classes of reserved parking spaces. If you're going to allocate a scarce resource, that is the worst way to do it, right? You've got reserved for valet, for office users, for condo owners, for hotel guests. And so just because I am this anal or analytical maybe, four different times I've walked through when it said that that parking garage is full and there was an average of 117 empty spaces. So I think separate from this, I'm happy to offer my volunteer, my services or expertise or whatever with respect to parking and try and get the neighbors to all work together in whatever way possible. I'm not sure that's what today's about, but I agree with you on that in general. Okay. Before we'll, I've forgotten which one, you know, Mike and Patrick, I don't know what you all's motions were, but Mike's point was he was going to, I think, make a motion maybe dropping or deleting. I've got it covered. I've got it covered. Oh, I was getting ready to say, if you make the motion. Patrick's on board here. Can I ask one follow-up question? I don't know if my question was really ever answered. Is it a possibility that they would make some parking available in some fashion, some kind of an agreement, the 12 spaces across the way? They, who's the Manchester? Whoever the owners are. Across the street? at the manchester music hall property i mean i don't i don't know i think that that that's a separate ownership group and i mean i i guess then the question would be how that would i don't know we would have on a plan that would i know we had to do it a lot on jefferson street we had to allow people to lease space uh or have off-site parking i realize you all meet the requirements and what have you but I'm sensing you know and maybe this is a first step forward of of how the neighborhood starts to work together is starting to allow some shared parking and and I'm just suggesting that maybe you do it with these 12 spaces well I think that's a conversation they can have with with the owner across the street but I don't know I mean I think I think that would have to be almost something that happened off plan, if you will. It's two separate properties, separate owners. Well, we've done it as conditional uses in the past. We've had to, I believe, because of lack of parking, you know, not being able to meet the numbers. I would just like to see some. it just doesn't make sense that if there's all this parking that we can't utilize it, you know, in some fashion. I think to Commissioner Pohl's point, it's a question of when that property across the street develops what they have there, because they clearly have it, it's just a matter of when it comes online. Well, and I think to this point, it makes sense to me why they would use those 12 spaces. They're already there. So they don't have to spend money to develop the rest of their lot. but but but so choices force choices so you know this property is going to develop they lose those 12 spaces and so something will have to happen so everybody can get along right well that's that's what i'm trying to propose yeah i think i think we can do it without i know i'm going to ask about that okay any other discussion yeah i'm sorry thank you just one comment before we move on i I think we beat this hard enough. Mr. Hollaback offered, and as I've mentioned here several times, usually we've been talking about infrastructure, sidewalks, public safety, when I've said that state, local, and stakeholders down there needed to get together and try and work out something. With Mr. Hollaback's statute being a little taller than I am, he may make it work even better. I would just like to echo that one more time and say, you know, that's something that not just your corner, but all of Manchester Street needs. So I'll defer that project to you. Yes, sir. If there's a task force or anything, I'm happy to be on it. Would beg to be on it. And if it's informal, happy to help. I'm offering that you start it. You've just been volunteering. You're a kind man, Mr. Owen, and I appreciate that. Okay. I'm happy to help. Thank you for that. Before we get to the motion, I have a question for legal, just to get me clear here. Number 10, it says, the staff says that that should be with findings, and we don't have those findings in front of us. Now, they've indicated that they have the findings as such, but are we still in proper legal to consider that? I mean, really, it's just a statement that it meets the requirements in Article 821. Oh, okay. But should the motion be fixed? Should the motion stay with findings, though? Well, the motion could just include a finding that the development plan complies with Article 821 of the zoning ordinance. Okay. 821? It's condition number 10, so, you know, if you want to be more specific than just adopting condition number 10, you can make the motion to say that instead of condition number 10 the commission's finding that the development plan complies okay now you got that are we ready for a motion yeah we're cleaned up now yes sir mr patrick are you sure about that i'm not sure about anything but go ahead mr chairman if i may i'd like to make a motion for approval of PLN MJDP 1921 Manchester Development deleting number 11 and drawing particular attention to the findings that were discussed orally by the staff very adequately but to put a completely fine point on it related to article 821 as identified in number 10. I think you covered it. You second? Okay the motion has been made by mr brewer seconded by mr owens that we approve pln mjdp 19-21 manchester development distillery district east unit one with 10 conditions as provided by staff deleting number 11 and clarifying number 10 is that that is connected with the findings development plan which complies with article 821-04 of the zoning ordinance any other discussion on the motion If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next. That took a long time. Good afternoon. You want to turn to page four. If you look at the bottom of page four, MJDP 19-23 Town Branch Industrial, formerly Lawson LLC Parcel. This is located at 404 Alexandria Drive. okay this is old frankfurt pike coming down through here this is the circle with viley road connecting up this way towards lee's town and citation or heading down this way towards um Alexandria to Broussales Road. They are proposing to put they have six structures located on the property. They had come in and did a revision. This is a proposal of showing how they want to do building layouts, why they work on doing some revisions to the floodplain at the same time. We have 11 conditions that are typical sign-offs, which include environmental quality and division of water and waste management and division of water quality also. They had a couple cleanup conditions. We wanted an addition of building line on the property, addition of adjacent property information towards the north. Whoops. we just wanted to show how close this is truly to the railroad tracks up here and where this property extends to then we had a conditional complete conditional zoning restriction note from the previous development plan they part of that was there was a note that Biley Road would have the same old Frankfort Pike corridor buffer along that's edge of that property also this note was not included on the development plan so we asked that that note be added to this plan as part of the conditional zoning we just wanted to make sure we got tree protection and as I said this was time condition 16 was to resolve timing of post-development floodplain and current building conflicts. Currently, these buildings are in conflict with the floodplain, but as I said, they are working to do some improvements to the floodplain at this time. So with that, I open it to you if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions for Ms. Galt? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. members of the commission my name is matt carter vision engineering with me here today is josh karn owner of the property um we are in agreement with the 16 conditions we understand that mr cato has got some issues he wanted to bring up but um other than that we kind of would reserve any comments we have until we hear what mr cato has to say but if you have any questions of me or the owner we'd be glad to answer those now okay any questions for mr oh you'll everybody wait or mr nickel i just have a quick question so you all are good with um 15 and 16 yes okay good yes okay uh with that then we'll move to mr caco uh you've got Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, it's a privilege to speak in front of you today, our hardworking staff. The audience has windowed down considerably, but I think it's just the applicant now. I appreciate them being here too. My name is Zach Cato. I'm an attorney at Billings Law Firm. We represent the Lexington-Frankfurt Scenic Corridor, Inc., which is a nonprofit which is tasked with preservation and enhancement of our historic and scenic corridors within the Bluegrass region, which would include this area that we're talking about today. Mr. Clendenin is passing around to help me out a letter for each of you. I'm going to cover everything that's in it so you don't have to study. There will not be a test at the end. In 2017, there was a piece of property that my client previously owned at 2450 Old Frankfurt Pike which is sort of across the street from this development. Let's see here. It's right here this boomerang shape and then up in the gateway there's a little teardrop that you could probably barely see on this. That's all part of the same parcel. They donated that and transferred it to the city for the purposes of installing a pull off and I think putting some plaques also to supplement and support the secretariat statue which is going to be going in that roundabout that property was valued at about fifty eight and a half thousand dollars at the time and they dedicated to the city for that purpose my understanding is that that statue is supposed to be installed sometime in October was the most recent thing I've heard so that's coming and my Our client's concerned with that, making sure that this area is kept in good shape and pristine for that purpose, and the corridor itself being preserved. At this time, I'd like to introduce into the record an original copy of the letter that I was handed to you all, and a disc which contains a number of documents that we are relying on, and which we make reference to in the letter. just for the purpose of the record. I'm going to read what those are, and I'm going to read them real quick. The 2013 and 2018 comprehensive plans, the zoning ordinance, specifically Articles 19 and 21, the LFUCG Greenway Master Plan, the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan, the consent decree between Lexington and the United States from 2011, the integrated report to Congress on the condition of water resources in Kentucky, that's the 2017 version, the watershed planning guidebook for Kentucky communities, 2010 version, the LFUCG stormwater manual 2016, the procedures manual for infrastructure development the same year, and the stormwater manual amendment number one in addition the wolf run watershed based plan the stormwater priority projects list for home flooding or serious street flooding known or suspected which is the January 2019 version a technical memorandum of the Southland area storm drainage project in the wolf run watershed dated June 2018 the old Frankfort Pike landscape Corridor Ordinance 134-89, an article from the Herald Leader entitled How Larger Than Life Secretariat Monument Could Become Lexington's Newest Tourist Attraction December 24, 2018, and lastly, the Old Frankfort Pike Historic and Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan 2013. I feel like I need to take a breath after that. So we read that into the record, and I will try not to bore you any further. There are a couple of exhibits that we've submitted also, which you're going to see here. Basically, there are some pictures, some vicinity maps just to give an idea of the area we're talking about. Those are also being submitted into the record. To talk a little bit about the property, as you can see, it is at the very edge of the urban service area. It comes right up to the edge of this property. Then on the other side, we're talking about the rural area. down here old frankfurt pike and this is alexandria drive down through here um the floodplain this is from the floodplain map this is the property here generally it kind of goes up here a little bit this is primarily what's going to be peeled back so they can do some fill activities on the what's currently floodplain and i think it's going to pair back along the side a little bit towards the edge of the property. But particularly, I mean, you can see it's not rocket science. This portion that dips down the middle of the property is problematic for them to do a lot of stuff, which makes sense. There are three basic issues that my client has. I come here today with a realistic understanding of where we are in the process and who the different players in the process, what their roles are. But my client wanted their concerns to be heard and considered by you today when you make your decision. The first issue is, generally speaking, the preservation of this corridor. It is a designated scenic byway. It is a designated historical road in Lexington. It's referenced repeatedly in the rural land management plant as such. It is also a designated gateway into the city, which you can see here. This gateway marked here is specifically the point they reference in the RLMP about being where we're transitioning from a rural use out here in the county to this corridor here that goes in towards downtown. There was a landscaping ordinance put in place in 1989 which required certain landscaping along old Fragford Pike between New Circle Road and the edge of the urban service boundary which runs right in front of this property. The reason for that and one of the things that's cited in that landscape ordinance is the need to have a gradual transition from rural lower intensity scenic uses to the higher intensity downtown areas to have some sort of a transition so you're not going from country to downtown and I think the landscape has been addressed previously by staff I'm gonna talk a little bit about it in a minute and that was the purpose of it was to provide some transition these are some photographs that were taken by a representative of my client back in mid-April I'm providing just to give you an idea of the issues we're going to be talking about today. I believe these were taken sometime in the second or third week of April. You can see that they're not the most high-resolution pictures, so I'm not sure how old the phone was that took them. But you can kind of get an idea of the size of the fill project that's going on out there, how wide it is, how deep it is, how tall it is. you can see there's quite a bit of stuff out there. My understanding is it's coming from the Lexington Convention Center renovation, primarily or exclusively. If that's incorrect, I'd be happy to be corrected on that, but that's my understanding at this point. It's not a good picture at all. These were pictures taken yesterday at the same site, and you can see if you compare them that there's been a lot of progress on accumulating this fill material out there in the last two or three weeks, whenever they were taken. It appears that what's going on out there is they're stockpiling the fill material because they can't yet fill in the floodplain, which makes sense. But the problem is that what my client's members have is that this continues to get taller and wider and deeper while they wait for all these approvals from FEMA to sign off on a conditional letter of map amendment. That's kind of where we're fitting into this process now. And they've got constraints, which we understand, but this is a difficult problem, and our client's members are not happy about the fact that it's being stockpiled. You can see that it's quite a bit higher than it was a few weeks ago. There's a lot of trucks out here. There's a lot of activity. This is taken from across the road, obviously. There's a whole lot of activity out here. It's going further and further over. You can see some of the material over here on the left side. Looks like it might be very recent just because it's darker. You can see the size of what we're talking about. That's a dump truck out there. It's quite a mound out in this area. There was a truck coming in when somebody went out to take these pictures as a matter of fact. So they're concerned about what the, how the timeline of all this is going to fit together because there are a lot of moving pieces and the concern is what happens if they're not approved to fill in the floodplain, what happens if the development plan has to change, what happens if there's an appeal file and all this stuff sits there or it's not developed even if they do get their approvals we've got a very problematic piece of property on the scenic corridor that what do we do with it and I don't propose to you that I have a good answer for that today I'm sure they don't have a good answer if they do I'd be glad to hear it but I don't know there's a good answer to that but I'm telling you these are the concerns that people have and this is what people are going to see when they're driving into Lexington and I don't think Lexington wants that and that's why I want you to at least consider it before you make your decision today part of the issue that I was talking a minute ago about the FEMA floodplain amendment process is that it makes this development plan more speculative than usual there's always a little bit of speculation in the development plan because you still got to go get your sign-offs you still got of tie-ups and details there's always a possibility that the development is not going to get developed and you end up with an empty property that's been graded or partially graded and then nothing happens that's always a possibility here the problem is we've got all this stuff in now that if the project doesn't go through and is delayed even further we could be talking about several years from now we're still trying to figure out what to do with this property. Today, if you approve this development plan, the plan will be buildable as soon as the letter of map amendment comes back, assuming it does, and goes through the appeals process if there is one. When it comes to on the other side, they will be able to go get a building permit and start building and filling in the floodplain, doing grading, degrading in the floodplain, whatever they need to do to make it buildable. The problem with that is, at this point, it's not clear exactly what the full impact of those changes to the floodplain is going to be. There are a lot of people in this neighborhood that own property or that have interest in the neighborhood as far as the appearance of it that are concerned about changes to the floodplain not being fully understood or appreciated at this time because of problems they're currently having out there. They are concerned that it's not going to be sufficiently addressed, I guess, until we know what the final FEMA sign-off is going to look like and if any changes are required. We've already got a flooding problem in Lexington, and you You can hear, if you're in technical review committees or in subcommittee hearings, you can hear discussion of our vanishing floodplanes. Where's all this stuff going to go? The piecemeal approach has been taken up until now. When you look at one property and the impact one property has, there's a lot of ways you can justify removing and filling in floodplain. But when you step back and look at a county-wide approach to how we deal with our stormwater management eventually there's going to be a crisis point there was one a few years ago there resulted in a consent decree and what the concern is is that by kicking the can down the road and piecemealing out these determinations one property at a time without a citywide approach we're eventually going to run out of sufficient floodplain and have a big problem now I'm saying that to you because that's what my clients concern is I know a lot of that's out of of your control but I'm saying it for the sake of the record and to voice our support for any efforts to look at that issue at a citywide level my client would definitely be in favor of that like I said we understand where we are at where we are in the process that came to you today with a realistic expectation of where we are in this process. My client would like the development plan to be either disapproved or postponed until the floodplain issues can be further addressed and looked at and understood instead of waiting for the FEMA determination letter to come back, in which case we've got to go through an appeal which could drag things out even longer. We would like to discuss it further now and whether that's possible or not, whether that would be beneficial or or not, given the federal sign-offs and the state sign-offs, I don't know. In a perfect world, that's what they would want to happen. I've made an effort here to lay out a timeline of events the best I can to, for a conditional approval, to try to address the concern of timing of some of these projects so we don't have this massive mound to fill out there for months or years at a time. I think that, again, in a perfect world, there's a lot of issues here that are difficult with the timing, and I don't know if there's a perfect solution, but I would be open to hearing and answering any questions you've got about what that could look like because we are concerned about the timing of all this. And finally, irrespective of any decision on the plan itself, one condition that my client would like to see in which we had previously discussed with the applicant and they were very receptive to it and I don't know if they are now that we're pushing back on other issues but at one point we discussed the timing of the installation of the landscaping buffers that are required by requiring them on Old Frankford Pike which is required by the ordinance I believe miss Galt said that a prior development plan note also required it down Viley. Is that also Alexandria? Okay. One of the things that we discussed was having it, there's two boundaries, a boundary on Alexandria and a boundary on Old Frankfurt Pike for this property, and we discussed having it down both sides because you can see up onto the property from Old Frankfurt Pike when you're coming towards downtown to provide screening on both sides and also to have the landscaping buffers installed by October 1st to try to accommodate as best we can the installation of the statue which is going out in which there's been a lot of commitment to in the city and my client to make happen so we would ask you would consider that timing element also for purposes of your consideration today I appreciate your time and attention I appreciate the things that I've said today some of it's out of your control but I appreciate your attention and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Mr. Cato we're gonna give Mr. Carter a chance to respond and please stand by but there probably will be some additional questions after Mr. Carter gets through we'll give the staff final chance and and we'll open it up for questions for anyone. Thank you. I'll be here. I guess to answer a couple of the questions that he presented, one was he discussed the preservation of the corridor, and this is the Old Frankfurt Pike Corridor Ordinance 134-89. We've read through it, and we're in full compliance with this corridor ordinance, what it basically says is that for 20 feet outside the right of way along this corridor we have to provide landscaping that's shown on this drawing it also says that this has to be done when you apply for a building permit which we have we're not applying for a building permit at this point the applicant he has talked to the to mr. Cato and and they've discussed the timing of when he would do improvements and he's you know he said he's willing to work with them and try to get some of the landscaping in before they put their statue up so that you know they'll have something nicer to look at when they do their dedication of the statute. As far as what happens if this prop project stalls, the only reason it stalls is if we cannot get our permit for the clomer turned in. And we've done our study. We've proven in our study that we're not creating any issues in the floodplain we've submitted the study to water quality for review they're in the process of reviewing it one of the things they wanted was water quality wanted us to do this development plan and they asked that it go through TRC before they would sign off on our study and we're kind of in that area now where they're reviewing it. Once they sign off, then the report will go to FEMA. FEMA reviews it as well. It's a lengthy process. It's not taken lightly. I know there's a lot of concern about the floodplain and there's some flooding issues. When we do these types of, well, CLOMERS, these issues are taken into account and once it's approved there will be no detrimental impact to the floodplain so as far as postponing we I see no need to postpone all that's going to do is delay the process of getting the clomer approved which would delay getting that the fill that he's got in there cleaned up and the fill that he has in there he does have a permit for it he's not violating any any ordinances he has a land disturbance permit he's he's not filling in the floodplain it's outside the material it's hard to come by and he's he's got a good source of material right now that he didn't want to to lose out on And like I say, he's complying with all the rules. I know it's an ugly pile now, but given time, it's going to be spread out and cleaned up. But other than that, I'd be glad to answer any questions. If you have any for the applicant, he's here. Okay. Okay, first before we get to the questions, I will give Mr. Cato a chance to respond to your rebuttal point and then the staff, and then we will open it up at that time for questions to anyone and everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't, I can't disagree with anything you said. I understand what he's saying. I understand the process. My clients have concerns, and I'm bringing those to you today to make sure they're heard and known about. Okay, thank you. Staff. I would like to provide some information to the Planning Commission to really clarify some things, I think, which may give guidance to your decision making. And first of all, the Old Frankfort Landscape Ordinance, as you all are aware, is a council ordinance. And it does require this landscaping to go in. It does require it to be tied to a building permit for structures. It requires development plans for those properties that adjoin Old Frankfort. We have other industrial properties across the street that don't have development plans on them because they don't have any frontage on Old Frankfurt Pike. So that's why you actually have a development plan before you. It's also important to note that under our ordinance, once you've approved this development plan and it's been certified, they've got five, actually I take that back, it actually doesn't really have anything to do with certification. It's from your approval date. They have five years to pull a building permit. Five years. So again, there's no mechanism in the ordinance to precipitate making the applicant pull a building permit. And they can even allow the plan to expire and not pull a building permit. So the concern would be is what kind of precipitating event would require the landscaping independent of actual development of the property. The pulling of a building permit, for instance, which is the key. they will have to get the clomer and all that information in everything done before they will get any permits in our division of engineering water quality we have a floodplain manager the urban county engineer they're going to be looking at all that they sign off on all of it so I mean though those steps must be followed and must be approved by multi levels local state and federal government so again it comes back to this concern that we understand about the landscape ordinance and the appearance and this transition and a precipitating event. If, obviously, if the applicant's willing to do something on private matter, we wouldn't have any dog in that fight and we think that's a wonderful idea. So we want you to understand we're not sure that there's nothing within the way your ordinances are set up and the way your process works that gives provides a lot of options to require the timing on on this landscaping and and certainly staff would have grave concerns on you recommending that a permit a building permit has to be pulled within some time frame because again the ordinance is very clear they have five years to do that We just wanted you to know when you think about this, because obviously you've been hit with a very interesting situation. The only shorter time frame that staff could conceivably see working is a preliminary subdivision plan and the filing of a record plat, for instance, which generally would relate to transfer of property financing, that sort of thing, might provide a shorter time frame. But again, it wouldn't necessarily meet this October time frame that you've heard expressed as a concern for the Old Frankfort Pike Committee. But just wanted to provide that information to you to help make this in perspective. Thank you. Now we'll open it up for questions. And Mr. Penn is first, and Ms. Carolyn Plumlee is second. Matt, if I could address you. Two questions. One of them is, is all the material that you're stockpiling there going to be needed for that project? Yes. So it won't be like what happened up on Crossman Road and Riddler where they stockpiled. I know the state did that, but they stockpiled material and then hauled it away. We're not getting in that situation here, are we? No. In fact, our proposed finished grades are lower than the road, so it slopes down from the road. So, you know, the finished product won't be – you know, what you see in those pictures is just a stockpile. The reason I ask that question is I know you have the five years. Yes. So you have to pull the building permit, and I know there's ways to make that work. But being the fact that that's a close haul, I really wouldn't want this to be a place where we stockpile stuff just because we were doing another project downtown because I think two wrongs don't make a right. So if all the stuff that you all are putting there is usable, it's what you're going to need, that's one thing. If it's not, that's another issue. So I just wanted to get on the record that you're going to need whatever you put out there. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. This is purely a query from the uninformed, but the stuff that is there now, the stockpile and the piles that we saw in the photo, do they just get squished down? Are you going to take them all away, take all that away? It'll be moved around. We'll have a geotech engineer on site. We will be monitoring the fill. you saw some like pieces of concrete and stuff a lot of that will have to be broken up to smaller pieces but it'll be an engineered feel when it's done and you know nobody would build on it otherwise so but yeah it'll be kind of sorted out and and probably a lot of the concrete will be put in lower elevations and the better clay on top but it's a big area so I know the pile looks big but when you look at the whole area it's gonna you know be picked on and sorted and spread out well we we're pretty confident and we're going to get a clomer so I mean we this is what we do So I suppose if a clomer didn't come through, we would have to go back and revisit our grading plan and try to work within the floodplain as it is. And, you know, it would change our game plan, but, I mean, we can make it work. thank you thank you thank you Mr. Carter a couple of questions I had did just get asked so we can bypass that with your finished elevation presuming this moves forward you know right now we're seeing you know mounds of dirt 30 feet in there or 40 feet in there and so forth you're saying it's all going to be moved and the finish elevation will be below the road what happens what will it look like on the back side where you're abutting the floodplain on the creek side will it waste down to nothing or will you leave no there will be yeah, no, there's no retaining wall. It'll be a three-to-one slope down towards the creek. We're not going to be right adjacent to the creek. We have 50 feet. We have to be back. A three-to-one slope. You don't want to go waist down to nothing. Yeah, and then the area at the base of the slope to the creek, we have a planting plan for that. and all that's been designed. Okay. When do you think you'll get results back in here as far as the Clomers? Well, if we can get the sign-off from Lexington and we turn it into FEMA, it will be about a six-week process. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I've got a quick question. Nickel. Mr. Carter, so in order to get to FEMA, you need us to approve this development plan. Is that correct? Yes. I have to have a signature. I guess, is he the floodplain coordinator? Is that his title? Yeah. The urban county engineer will have to sign off on their application, and the floodplain coordinator makes that recommendation to him and requires this plan. Okay, thank you. And for him to sign off, he actually reviews our model and goes through it, and he has to basically concur with all of our conclusions. I have one question for you, Mr. Carden. We've been told and we understand there's no requirement regarding the buffering and the landscaping and what have you. If it did take five years, are you willing to work in any way or negotiate with the people in the scenic area to determine that they could get that landscaping up there a little earlier as opposed to watching mounds of dirt for the next five years? Yeah, and he said that part of the corridor, it's not 30-foot high berms. It's two-and-a-half, three-foot-high berms with evergreen trees. It's pretty heavily. It's got some big potential for some big trees on it, but it does have evergreens. And, yeah, he has said he would work with the corridor people and try to do that. his problem is going to be some of the area may not be to grade until we get a clomer approved. Well, we appreciate that. I mean, it was the idea was one of the things that Mr. Cato expressed was that being a scenic highway and all that for five years, it might be that. And we understood that there's no compulsory part on your part, but the idea that you'd be willing to even work with and consider, I think that says a lot too. Any other questions for either the applicant, Mr. Cato, or Mr. Carter? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion. One comment, if I may, please. with Mr. Cato I can appreciate where he's coming from and his applicant as far as scenic corridor is concerned I can easily say I'm with him on that the only concern not a concern but problem there is that on Oak Frankfurt Pike we've got a very very hard transition between rural scenic corridors and the urban service boundary and it's pretty obvious where it is and you know anything that they can do to help buffer in the meantime we'd appreciate it but you know I'm sorry to say I can remember when the corridor commission came got approval for the pull-off and I voted to approve it and so forth but I'm still scratching my head as to fortunately looking, what is that, to the north? There's still, if looking to the north, you've got 180 degrees anyway that's scenic. So sorry that it's that way, but we do have an urban service boundary. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Motion? Well, anyone else? Okay, Mr. Penn. The staff recommended approval. We heard the comments. The applicant has heard our concerns. And Mr. Kato, we certainly heard your concerns. however I feel the need to move for approval on this being the timing of the issues so I recommend approval of PLN PJDB 1923 with the 16 reasons or 16 conditions okay it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn second by Mr. Bruce Nickel that we approve PLN MJDP 19-23 Town Branch Industrial Alexandria Drive with the 16 conditions provided by staff. Any additional discussion on the motion? Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Thank you. Do we route any coverage, any condition for compliance with the buffering? What are you tied to? It would have to be something totally separate. I'm not sure. I'd ask staff for help, I guess. I thought about that, but I don't want to tell you. That compliance would be tied to our sign-off on a building permit. Building permits, you said, may take five years. It could, yes, sir. That's what. The discussion and the agreement was to try and get something even this year if possible which is why staff was trying to explain that we didn't see any precipitating event that you could tie this to under the ordinances and under this process i mean that's that's exactly the issue before you i'm i'm trying well well you know in in mr owens uh to sort of build on that that's why i was asking mr carter if they were willing to work with the historic scenic committee to do what they could but there's no requirement and that I wanted to make sure that that was on the table and also the fact that the applicant in this case is working on a voluntary type of basis to do what they can do to make life easier for the people in both Lexington and in that area so but I don't think legally there's anything that can be done here right I I mean, there's no conditions or anything we can put into anything like this. That's what I thought. So, Mr. Owens? That's okay. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, just to review, the motion is to approve by, let's see, who made that motion? I forget. Mr. Penn, the second by Mr. Nickel. you heard for approval for the 19-23 Town Branch Industrial Laws Affirm with the 16 conditions provided by staff. That's the motion. If there's no other discussion, please vote when it comes on your screens. Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. We have one other thing that was under the staff items, and this is strictly for information. It has to do with Article 4-5B Improvement Plan and Progress Report. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. This will be an item that the Planning Commission will just receive periodically from applicants to provide updates. It used to be a 30% report, and in 2017 or perhaps 2018, we updated the subdivision regulations and switched it to a 50% report. So in this case, this is the one we've received, the staff has received for Harper Woods development on Armstrong Mill, and it is not something the commission needs to act on. It's strictly informational. Anything else? Anything else from the commission members? If not, thank you for your attendance and without objection, the meeting is adjourned.