# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - July 11, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 11, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4796 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4796?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-07-11 - **Last revised**: July 11, 2019 - **Length**: 25,513 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 July 11, 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 Crossroads Christian Church (AMD) matter and the JFG Enterprises, Inc. (IVCP Athens LLC) proposal. Throughout the meeting, commissioners conducted five separate motions and votes on various matters before the body. The commission also heard one public comment during the proceedings, allowing community input on the items under consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the July 11, 2019 meeting: • William Wilson • Headley Bell • Bruce Nicol • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Karen Mundy • Patrick Brewer • Anthony de Movellan Two members were absent: • Larry Forester • Graham Pohl No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included five formal votes, all of which passed unanimously with all nine members present voting in favor. **PLN-MJDP-19-00029 - Lexington Industrial Foundation, Unit 2 (Building 1) Withdrawal** [timestamp: 00:00] Karen Mundy motioned to withdraw the application, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The withdrawal was approved unanimously (9-0) with all members voting in favor: William Wilson, Headley Bell, Bruce Nicol, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Karen Mundy, Patrick Brewer, and Anthony de Movellan. **PLN-MJSUB-19-00006 - Tuscany, Unit 15 Postponement** [timestamp: 00:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone the Tuscany, Unit 15 application, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The postponement was approved unanimously (9-0) with the same nine members voting in favor. The item was postponed to August 8, 2019. **PLN-FRP-19-00005 - Crossroads Christian Church Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Mike Owens motioned to approve the Crossroads Christian Church application, seconded by Headley Bell. The approval passed unanimously (9-0) with all nine members voting in favor. The approval included modifications to the conditions, with conditions #9, #10, and #11 deleted and a new condition #9 added to denote waiver approval. **PLN-MJDP-19-00034 - Consent Agenda Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Patrick Brewer motioned to approve the consent agenda, seconded by Karen Mundy. The consent agenda was approved unanimously (9-0) with all members voting in favor. **PLN-MJDP-19-00027 - JFG Enterprises, Inc. (IVCP Athens LLC) Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Mike Owens motioned to approve the JFG Enterprises application, seconded by Frank Penn. The approval passed unanimously (9-0) with all nine members voting in favor. The approval included a modification to condition #10, changing the language from "denote" to "resolve." ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one community member addressed the board regarding safety concerns related to a proposed development project. [timestamp: 00:00] Janet spoke to express concerns about public safety and traffic implications associated with a proposed drive-thru facility at Monticello Mall. She specifically highlighted the proximity of the proposed drive-thru to a nearby middle school as a particular area of concern regarding potential traffic and safety impacts on students and the surrounding community. ## Appointments The council took action on two appointments to the Urban County Planning Commission during the July 11, 2019 meeting. **Urban County Planning Commission:** • Frank Penn was reappointed to continue serving on the commission • Anthony de Movellan was appointed as a new member to the commission These appointments ensure continued representation and expertise on the Urban County Planning Commission, which plays a key role in reviewing development proposals and land use decisions within the jurisdiction. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that required extended discussion and ultimately led to a continuation of the matter. **Waiver of Improvements for Waits/Moore Ltd. Partnership Property** A procedural dispute arose regarding the Waits/Moore Ltd. Partnership Property, specifically concerning who should bear the financial responsibility for required public improvements. The disagreement centered on whether the property owner or another party should cover these improvement costs. The nature of the dispute involved questions about the proper allocation of financial responsibility for public infrastructure improvements associated with the property. This type of disagreement typically involves considerations of municipal policy, property development requirements, and cost-sharing arrangements between private developers and public entities. Due to the complexity of the issues involved and the need for additional information or deliberation, the council was unable to reach a resolution during this meeting. The discussion was continued, indicating that further review, research, or stakeholder input was necessary before a final decision could be made. The continuation suggests that the matter required more thorough examination of the relevant policies, legal requirements, or financial implications before the council could determine the appropriate party to bear the improvement costs. This type of procedural dispute often involves reviewing development agreements, municipal codes, and precedent cases to ensure proper allocation of responsibilities. ## Crossroads Christian Church (AMD) The commission reviewed application PLN-FRP-19-00005 for Crossroads Christian Church (AMD), which involved the subdivision of one tract into two lots at the church property [timestamp: 00:00]. Key speakers during the discussion included Rory Kahly and Mike Owens, who presented details about the proposed subdivision plan. The application centered on dividing the existing church property to create two separate lots. The commission's deliberation focused on several important conditions that would need to be addressed as part of the approval process. These conditions included: • **Drainage requirements** - Ensuring proper stormwater management and drainage systems would be in place for both lots • **Traffic considerations** - Addressing any potential traffic impacts from the subdivision and ensuring adequate access • **Landscaping standards** - Meeting municipal landscaping requirements for the newly created lots The discussion examined how the subdivision would affect the church's operations and the surrounding area. Commissioners evaluated whether the proposed lot division would comply with local zoning regulations and development standards. After reviewing the application materials and hearing from the speakers, the commission considered the technical aspects of the subdivision, including lot sizes, setback requirements, and utility access for both proposed lots. The commission ultimately **approved** the Crossroads Christian Church subdivision application, allowing the church to proceed with dividing their property into two separate lots. The approval came with the understanding that all discussed conditions regarding drainage, traffic management, and landscaping would need to be satisfied during the development process. This approval enables the church to move forward with their property development plans while ensuring compliance with municipal standards for subdivision development. ## JFG Enterprises, Inc. (IVCP Athens LLC) [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-19-00027 for JFG Enterprises, Inc. (IVCP Athens LLC) during the meeting. The discussion focused on several key aspects of the proposed development, with particular attention to infrastructure and site planning requirements. Key speakers Nathan Billings and Stephen Parker presented details and addressed commission concerns regarding the development proposal. The discussion centered on three primary areas of consideration: drainage management, traffic impact, and landscaping requirements for the project. The commission examined conditions related to proper drainage systems to ensure the development would not negatively impact surrounding properties or municipal infrastructure. Traffic considerations were also discussed, likely addressing how the development would affect local traffic patterns and whether additional traffic management measures would be necessary. Landscaping requirements formed another component of the review, with the commission considering how the development would integrate with the surrounding area and meet municipal standards for green space and visual appeal. Following the presentation and discussion of these various conditions and requirements, the commission reached a decision on the development plan. The agenda item was ultimately approved, indicating that the commission found the proposal, along with any discussed conditions or modifications, to be acceptable and in compliance with local development standards. The approval of PLN-MJDP-19-00027 allows JFG Enterprises, Inc. (IVCP Athens LLC) to proceed with their development project, subject to meeting the conditions discussed during the commission review process. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MJDP-19-00029** — withdrawn (9-0): Withdrawal of Lexington Industrial Foundation, Unit 2 (Building 1) (AMD) - **PLN-MJSUB-19-00006** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Tuscany, Unit 15 - **PLN-FRP-19-00005** — passed (9-0): Approval of Crossroads Christian Church (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-19-00034** — passed (9-0): Consent Agenda Approval - **PLN-MJDP-19-00027** — passed (9-0): Approval of JFG Enterprises, Inc. (IVCP Athens LLC) --- ## Full transcript In another's eye, I'm someone who loves her enough to walk away from you. I'd never cheat And I would never lie In another's eyes Yeah In another's eyes I can do no wrong And he believes in me And his faith is strong I'd never fall Reap uncompromise In another's eyes In another's eyes I'm afraid that I can't see This picture, perfect portrait That they paint of me They don't realize, and I pray they never do, cause every time I look I'm seeing you in another's eye. Oh, in another's eye Staring back at me I see a singing soul Trying desperately Turn the tide Before it dies In another's eye Yeah. And one thing don't see, the Lord is killing me. It's a blessing and a curse that love is born. Welcome to the July 11th, 2016 Urban County Planning Commission. Welcome all of those of you who are in the audience. Welcome to my commission members and to the staff. Thank you for your participation and support. With that, I'd like to first of all start off by recognizing, first of all, Mr. Frank Penn, who's been reappointed to the Planning Commission. We need his wisdom and experience, and so we're delighted to have him back. We also have a new member today, Mr. Anthony DeMovillen. He's with DeMovillen Real Estate, and I indicated I'd give him a couple minutes to kind of introduce himself to you all and to the other commission members. So, Mr. Movelin, turn your mic on. That's it. All right, I'm Anthony DeMovulin. I'm a lifelong resident here in Lexington, Kentucky. I live here in town, and I run our family real estate firm, Berkshire Hathaway DeMovulin Properties. And I'm very honored to be serving with you all, and I'm looking forward to it. Thank you. Thank you, and we're looking forward to your participation and the skills and wisdom that you will bring to this august committee. Thank you so very, very much. The approval of the minutes, Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move approval of June 13, 2019 minutes. Is your mic on? Yeah, I turned it on. Oh, okay. Okay, do I have a second? Okay, Ms. Plumlee moves, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve the minutes of June 13, 2019. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. Postponements and our withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. on page six item h pln mjdp 1929 lexington industrial foundation unit 2 building 1 amended 2029 buck lane we had requested a continued discussion item we'd now like to withdraw that it's uh on page six h But what's he withdrawing? He's withdrawing the Lexington Industrial Foundation. The whole thing? Yeah, the whole thing. Is there anyone in the audience like to speak to this withdrawal proposal? Anyone on the commission? Not will I entertain a motion? Ms. Mundy? Mr. Chair, in light of the applicant's request, I move that we accept their withdrawal of PLNMJDP 19-29 Lexington Industrial Foundation, Unit 2, Building 1, amended. Okay, the motion has been made by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we withdraw formally the PLNMJDP 19-29 Lexington Industrial Foundation, Unit 2, Building 1. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Applying Commissioner, Members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. I have one to postpone on page two at the bottom under preliminary subvision plans. This is item A, Tuscany Unit 15, Plan 1906. We're following staffs and subdivision committee of recommendation of postponement. Request one month. And what was the reason? That's what you all recommended, a subdivision committee. There's a lot of issues we're trying to get through. Okay, that's fair enough. We just need that for the minutes. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular recommendation for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Okay, Ms. Plumlee. What's the date? What's the date on that? August the 8th. August the 8th. August the 8th. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Plumlee, second by Mr. Brewer. that we postpone PLN MJSUB 19-6 Tuscany Unit 15 for one month or until August 8th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay, Ms. Wade, possibility for consent agenda? Yes, sir. we will read through the consent agenda and if there's anyone in the audience or any of the petitioners that would like to have these items pulled from a consent agenda and be heard by the planning commission i'll need you to let us know when i finish so there are seven items on the consent agenda today and that appears on our brown sheet at the back of the at the back of the room I'll read through those and mention one in particular. So let's start with page four, item B, three development plans. Item B is PLN, MJDP 1934, Willow Oak Shopping Center, also known as Mill Pond Center. This is for a Kroger Fuel Center for property located at 3644 Boston Road. The next item is on page four. It's item C, PLN MJDP 19-35 for the Williams property, lots 1, 2, and 19. This is an amended final development plan for properties located at 801 Champions Way and 3401 and 3409 Country Club Drive. The next item, which needs a little bit of special attention by the commission, is on page five, item F. And that's PLN MJDP 19-40, Oak Park Subdivision, Melrose Edition, Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, and also known as Manchester Market. For property located at 172 South Forbes Road, 359 Thompson Road, 216 Wilton Avenue, 1206 and 1214 Liggett Street. And this particular item does have a finding associated with it for an adaptive reuse project. And you have a report at your seat related to that. In addition, we do need to have an affidavit from the applicant about a signposting. Thank you. The next four items that appear on the consent agenda were re-approval requests that the subdivision committee heard last week. The first one appears on page 6, item G, PLNMJDP 18-89 for Bryan Property, Lot 1, also an amended final development plan for property located at 1810 Bryant Road. The next item is on page 7, item I, PLNMJDP 18-24 for the Hamburg Place Community, Phase 2, also an amended final development plan. for property located on Flying Ebony Drive, and that includes four parcels, 2412, 2416, 2420, and 2424 Flying Ebony. Next item is on page 7 also, item J, PLN MJDP 18-30 for Ethington and Ethington property, tract one an amended final development plan for property located at 4145 and 4235 harrodsburg road and lastly on page 8 item k pln mjdp 17-103 for woodward lander unit 1a lots 142 and 155 also an amended final development plan for property located at 3180 Sandersville Road and 3104 Daily Place. So again, these seven items are available for the commission to consider in one motion for conditional approval unless a member of the planning commission, a member of the audience, or a petitioner would like to have any of these items removed from the consent agenda for further discussion. So is there anyone present in the audience that would like to have one of these items removed? Okay. Seeing none, if there's anyone in the Planning Commission that wants to have any of these heard, we can do that or take a motion. Okay. Anyone in the Commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion for consent agenda. Mr. Brewer? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda, including the finding that Tracy mentioned. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve the consent agenda as presented by staff, with the findings also listed on page 5 under F, and that's the Oak Park Subdivision Melrose edition. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, thank you. That motion carries. Okay, while they're getting set up for the next one, if you go to the very back on the performance bonds and letters of credit, this is not, it's on your Granicus. So if you go there, you will be able to pick up the letters of bonds and credit and the performance bonds letters of credit so we'll need a motion to deal with that yeah okay mr chairman i move for approval of the call of bonds there you have a second okay it's It's been moved by Mr. Frank Pence, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy. We have a call of performance bonds and letters of credit. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when that comes up on your screens. Okay, thank you. So that takes care of that. Now we'll go back to... Okay, we're ready to go. Good afternoon. Our first item is on page one at the bottom. This is number one, item A, under final subdivision plans. This is for FRP-19-5, Crossroads Christian Church, amended. This is located at 4128 Todd's Road. We have Todd's Road to the north. and then I-75 to the west. The purpose of this amendment is to subdivide one tract into two lots. And I'd like to point out lot two is mostly in the EAR1 zone, but also has a small portion of AR. we had most of our typical sign-offs with this plan we did have some discussion items starting with number nine discuss the sanitary sewer line to the ar lot the ar lot will have to have a septic system for number 10 discuss the location of proposed access points that is in regards to the 16 lots and the AR lot that will be developed in the future. And those lots will not have direct access to Todd's Road. Additionally, with item 11, discussing the right-of-way improvements to Todd's Road, those improvements will be made when the local street is built. and both the discussion items for 10 and 11 will be discussed further today with the preliminary subdivision plan that will be heard later in today's hearing. And now Mr. Martin is going to discuss the sanitary sewer waiver request. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, there is a waiver request associated with this final record plat that you see before you today. And it has been distributed to you. A lot of paper right here with the report. So the waiver in this particular instance is to allow the plat to be recorded and the property be transferred, then to allow development to follow and take place on the property, which is a normal process that you would follow in the development of a piece of property. They could have done a non-billed plat. As you all are aware, we have a non-billed plat that allows them to take down property, and then they come back with a plan. But they chose to go this route. And this route does require a waiver because the land subdivision regulations do address certain requirements. In this particular case, the most important requirement, every lot, when subdivided in our community under the subregs, is required to have public sewer. Now, this lot does not, once it's subdivided at this time, have public sewer, the nine acres that they're creating. What they are going to do when they develop the property, and this is on the preliminary subdivision final development plan that is also on your agenda that Ms. Hedge mentioned to you, they're going to have to build a pump station to serve this property. And pump stations are a challenge, obviously, and they take a little more work and design and cost to function. So in conjunction with that and with the preliminary subdivision and the final development plan on your agenda, they will be also building a local street to serve the development, and they're going to do improvements to Todd's Road as necessary in conjunction with that, with those improvements and with that construction. And again, that just makes sense that you would coordinate all that at that time when they're there having to do the amount of work that they'll be required to do on the property. So the church, by the way, is also served by a pump station, a small pump station designed to serve the church. It is not located at an elevation that would allow this property to utilize it. So with that, staff has reviewed this along with your Division of Engineering, and we are recommending approval of the waiver. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, Mr. Penn. So, Mr. Martin, there will be a separate pump station for this property and a separate pump station for the church property. Yes, sir. Unfortunately, that's just the way the topography and the location of the church pump station has resulted in this situation. Are there nine lots here? Pardon? Nine lots? I believe there are 16 lots. On the preliminary subdivision plan, and I was prepared to address this on the preliminary subdivision plan. The AR lot will have to have a septic tank. It is not our policy in this government to allow AR property to access public sewer. You have to be in the urban service boundary. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Again, Rory Caley with EA Partners. I believe they've explained this very well, and with your approval of the waiver, I believe conditions 9, 10, and 11 get replaced with that approval. I would like to add that we had Board of Adjustment approvals on Monday. So from the drawing that you see, we have a 100-foot setback along Ties Road, not 300. I just want to make sure I got that I'll denote all the BOA variances that were granted as well on the plat. Any questions from? Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular proposal? Okay. Then we'll bring it back to the commission here for additional discussion and our motion. Well, in 9, 10, and 11, we're going to pick that up on the back end. Okay. It's going to be in the development plan on the next page. In fact, with you all's permission, I'd like to move that around anyhow to bring it up to the, because we're talking about the same thing, you know, and it's separated here on the paper. So, well, it's just a matter of what you, this is the waiver part of it. So you could do that. And then you can do the, yes. Question. Normally, when we have something similar to this, there's a condition that, you know, makes reference to the waiver itself. And I think that's what Mr. Kaley was referring to. but I think we need some language for that okay staff help us out here mr. Owens we would just like for mr. Cayley with EA partners to denote on the plat that the waiver was approved whatever the waiver is for today if if that is approved so normally the condition would say provided the Planning Commission approves the associated waivers to and those three to three sections so they didn't submit a new plan so we didn't revise the conditions but those would remove as he mentioned 9 10 11 and then we'd ask him to denote that the waiver is approved on the plat as well as the Board of Adjustment variances. Are you saying we can delete those or yes delete and just put in to note waiver approval on the plat yes okay any other questions okay then we're ready for motion or additional discussion which is Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Two motions? We're going to do, all we need is one on this one. Just denoting the approval of the waiver as well? Okay. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan FRP 19-5 Crossroads Christian Church. with the currently existing eight conditions, deleting 9, 10, and 11, and changing, adding a new number 9 to denote approval of the waiver on the final record plat. And then also this motion would include the approval of the waiver associated with Plan FRP 19-5 Crossroads Christian Church amended as recommended by staff. Okay, we have a motion from Mr. Mike Owens, a second by Mr. Healy-Bell, that we approve the PLN FRP 19-5 Crossroads Christian Church as amended with the eight conditions provided by staff, denoting the fact that the number nine would be the approval of the waiver on the final plat. Any other discussion on the motion? Now, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion. And now, commission members, if it's agreeable with you, let's go to page three. There's another crossroads thing that's connected a little bit. So let's pick that up. So without objection, we'll move to that one. That's on page three, item B. Yeah, it's the dropment plan. Go ahead, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, as you have stated, on page three of your agenda is a major subdivision plan, final development plan, 19-7, Crossroads Christian Church, also now known as Garden Estates. This is, of course, an expansion area and, therefore, does require a compliance statement, which has been distributed to you as well. As you just saw, here's Todd's Road in this location. Here is the church location. This is an existing detention basin at this location. Here is the proposed local street that will be constructed by the applicant to serve this development. And again, you can see the nine acres with its triangular shape. It's bound by the urban service boundary, which comes through the property right up through here. It follows a natural drainage course, which is standard with the urban service boundary. It doesn't follow property boundaries necessarily, but it'll follow geographic features. And so that has created an interesting situation. Rory's already alluded to it in that you have the AR lot in this location. You have the urban service boundary. And there are, as you all are aware, requirements addressing the relationship, the urban service boundary, not the least of which was a 100-foot setback. And then there's fencing requirements under the subdivision regulations. There are landscaping requirements. These are what Rory was really referring to when he talked about going to the BOA. And I would direct your attention to number 10 on your agenda, where it states, provided the Board of Adjustment grants the requested variances. They have done so. Rory is correct. They were granted the variances. Now this was important to this property because of the impact on these lots. And then the location of the street as well would have been impacted had they had to meet the setback requirements. Again, 100 feet would have greatly reduced the buildable area. So they did go to the BOA. The BOA agreed that those variances were justified. This is a unique piece of property, as I stated before, in the sense that it's next to the urban service boundary. It's a little isolated. You've got Polo Club intersection that's going to be constructed back down this way. And then, of course, you have this semi-public use with the church in a large function right here. Well, this is EAR1, and they're developing these 16 buildable lots, as you can see. One of the conditions was that we have resolved there will be no access to Todd's Road from any of these lots, nor the AR lot. They're all going to be able to access this local street. So that has been resolved with the applicant as well. They are going to have to do some cleanup items. Health Department approval of the septic system on the AR lot. existing proposed easements, very standard. They need to correct a couple of things, including the zoning and the site statistics. The no access I just mentioned, that is not shown on this plan, and we would want it to be denoted clearly. Again, we don't want a purchaser to think that they can put a driveway from their property out to Todd's Road, because that's not going to be allowed. And then, very importantly, is that the Planning Commission needs to make a finding that this property complies with the AMP compliance report. And again, we have distributed that report to you. Now, again, what's interesting about this property, as I've already pointed out to you, it's not just its shape. It's relatively isolated. You know, it sits out here on Todd's Road next to the urban service boundary, got the large church use, and then it's across the road and down towards Prolo Club where you get to the rest of the AMP area. So it's kind of sitting out here a little lonesome all by itself and recommended for EAR1, which it is, of course, zoned for, and it will be developed as such. The lots that they're proposing are typical 6,000-square-foot lots. Fairly standard setbacks are proposed for these properties. It does meet the future land use recommendation of the AMP. The design features are such that it is a distinct neighborhood. That's one of the things the AMP encourages is design distinct neighborhoods. At the same time, the AMP encourages connections. Pedestrian facilities are particularly important to the AMP. In this case, in working with the applicant, they will build sidewalks along their local street, and then they have agreed to work with staff in putting the appropriate improvements along Todd's Road. And that will connect this property down to the existing improvements, and then in effect connect it to the rest of the A&P as envisioned with that plan. There are no infrastructure elements identified in the AMP that are in this area. There's no greenways, there's no pump stations, there's no large required regional basins. So the plan agrees with the infrastructure component. As I stated before, they are going to have to build a pump station. Well, that's just a local collection system which will pump across Todd's Road into the appropriate trunk line in that area that serves the EAMP. So all those portions of the required infrastructure have been constructed in this area and will serve this development. So the staff has, again, issued this report, and we are recommending that you do make a finding that it does comply with the EAMP. There's one slight condition that we've placed on there, and staff's been doing that lately. Just to be clear, one of the design elements in the AMP requires that 50% of a residential lot front yard be landscaped. And we have found that that's beneficial to put that right up there, and so everyone knows. And it's not unusual when they sell these homes, build them, people get landscape packages. You know, that's very standard practice. But, again, 50% is a significant portion of these properties. So we'd just like for that to be denoted so there's no confusion down the line with that particular requirement in your zoning ordinance. And with that, the two discussion items, 18 and 19, they can be deleted. That will be handled under your standard sign-offs for the development of this property. and staff is recommending approval of the plan at this time. Okay, Mr. Penn has a question for you. Tom, show me where the urban service boundary is there. It's this line that runs here, off-site, and then curls up through the property, Mr. Penn, and that's what created this AR, which is a bit of an anomaly. It is a legal, nonconforming lot because of the property line, the right-of-way, and that official boundary. And the size of that lot? It's just over two acres. Yes, sir. It's very non-conforming, obviously, by our standards today. Thank you. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Martin, the AR lot, did I hear you correctly, it will not have access to Todd's Road? It will not have access to Todd's Road. But it has to go to this local street? Yes, sir. I'm not seeing, is there a need for any sort of easement through that lot at this time? I don't believe so, but if there is, they would establish that at the time of a final record plat. But I don't believe they need one. It fronts on that local. It does? Is it? The yellow is on that. The yellow is on that, but the lot fronts. So you're saying the AR attaches to the newly constructed street? Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. Yes. I'm just. Yeah, it goes across. Okay, if you say so. This is just for your information. Yeah, I just wouldn't have seen it that way on the map. Okay. I know the color-ups can be a little confusing. Again, they were trying to demonstrate the AR and the AR1 portions. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Yes. Okay, Ms. Blundy. Mr. Martin, when this goes to final record and this is all recorded, will that urban service boundary be recorded as well, meets and bounds and so forth? Because it's my understanding that most of the urban service boundary is not designated anywhere. It will be shown on the plat, yes, ma'am. It'll be shown on the plat, but it won't be recorded like meets and bounds in the deed. I don't know how the deed may read, but the deed will be based on the exhibit, which will be the final record plat. I'm going to make an assumption here that the surveyor for the applicant will do a survey with meets and bounds of those lots. And if that coincides with the urban service boundary, then yes, it will be recorded. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Applicant. And by the way, there was a sign required to be posted on this property, an affidavit of said posting. They have submitted that and satisfied that requirement. Thank you. Again, Rory with EA Partners. To answer Ms. Mundy's question, the expansion area boundary line is set up when you do the zone change. That's when you get your meets and bounds. A lot of times that a rear property line will follow along it so that it does show up on a final record plat as well. We have to show that line. I would say on this one, the only place that would not have a legal description for the divide between the zones and urban service area would be on lot 17. where we are having Lot 17 have frontage on the new road just to make sure they don't get access onto Todd's Road. Thank you. All right. With that, we're in agreement with staff's presentation. I would say that number 13, because of the Board of Adjustment, it should be denote a 100-foot setback. That was approved. And then with item 11, the denote health department approval of septic system on lot 17. I want to clarify that that would be either prior to a building permit or prior to the final record plat because at that point we'll have gone through all the infrastructure construction plans and as we're getting ready to get to the plat we'll verify the septic systems whether it can or cannot. I didn't want to have to get that certification prior to getting this plan certified and starting all the other infrastructure. If I may, all staff is looking for is for them to denote on the plan that Board of Health certification will be necessary for the septic tank system, not that they get it prior to the certification of this plan. He is correct. at the time of final record plat is when they can pull permits, and it will be noted on the final record plat as well. But, no, we're not actually looking for them to go out and do a PERC test on that lot at this time. Okay, and one other clarification. You've made mention on 13 that it's 100 as opposed to 300. That's agreeable with staff? Yes, that's with the BOA. Okay, gotcha. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. I'll do the motion. Okay, Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJ issue B19-7 with the 17 conditions. highlight number 11 that says the health department will at the right time do the certification for the septic 10 on 17 and including the EAMP compliance report. Okay. No, he just said to take out 13 is not. It's just a correction on 13. Yeah, correction goes from 300 to 100 on number 13. Thank you. Where is that? I don't see it. I don't see that on there. Do we need to add that 50% landscape thing? No. It's part of the compliance report. I think it's mandatory for me to denote it. Okay. Then we're set on that. Any other where the number 10 is that all of this is provided the Board of Adjustment grants the requested variance. That's just a condition. Any other discussion? Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Frank Penn and seconded by Mr. Mike Owens that we approve the development of PLN MJSUB 19-7 Crossroads Christian Church with the 17 items identified by staff, changing number 13 from 300 to 100 and putting special highlight emphasis on denote the health department approval of the septic system or Lot 17, along with the EAMP compliance findings. Any other discussion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, thank you. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, now, ladies and gentlemen, we'll go back and pick up page 2, the Waitsmore LTD partnership property. Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this item is on page two of your agenda. It is a final record plat, 19-14 Waitsmore Limited Partnership property. We have also provided you with a blue piece of paper that are revised conditions, because staff did receive a revised plan prior to your meeting today. this is a final record plat with a waiver request which is why it is before you today done something wrong no yeah i didn't do that but i'm happy to see it there we go we're getting there we go we're getting oh up here we are that's it Members of the commission, we are out on Old Higby Mill Road. If you go in this direction, you'll hit Harrisburg Road. It's not right up, not far from this property at all, on Old Higby Mill Road. We have extensive housing development to the west in this location, through here, and to the south in this location. This green that you see is one of the lots in question, and It is an AU zone property, as is this property that is part of this plat as well. This was added. This has previously been created. It's been added to this plat. There's an access easement in this location that they share. This is an R1A lot that was recently rezoned by the Planning Commission and Urban County Council in this location. Again, it is a subject of the plat as well. this is not part of the plat this this subject lot right here in this location the property in question it's not overly large the property totals a little over three acres and i believe the remnant piece here is is about 1.8 approximately and this is about 1.2 or 3 acres here there is an existing house and you may recall when this was his own there was a lot of discussion about some of the uses out there and some of the structures on the property and how that needs to be reconciled as this property goes forward but again this is a final record plat and this is creating some property and that's that's really all it's doing and in the important from the staff's perspective and why is it before you today is for the waiver request and as i told you on the last plan, when you subdivide property, the subdivision regulations are applicable. And in this particular case, what would be applicable would be sanitary sewer, once again, as well as full half-section improvements along Old Higby Mill Road. They submitted a waiver request, and they are asking for a waiver of both of those requirements, sanitary sewer and improvements to Old Higby Mill Road. Now the house in question, and there's a house here as well, they've been there for quite a few years and they're served by septic tanks. And that's what this little square is that you can see. That's the septic field. They were asked to document that it was not on any part of an adjoining lot. That would necessitate an easement if it were. And we have dealt with that in the past. There is, I mentioned the floodplain, and there is a lot of floodplain on the rear of this property, and there's a setback off that, of course. There's a large sanitary sewer easement that runs to the rear of the property. It's a major trunk line that goes to the pump station further down on South Elkhorn Creek. It's one of the older but still new pump stations that was constructed to deal with our infiltration and overflow issues and our capacity assurance issues. The basis of the waiver, again, is that they're not changing any uses on these properties. These properties have been used for agriculture and some other activities for many, many years now by the family. This plant is a reflection of the family working together to settle some property issues and get things worked out among them. And that is also something that's not all that unusual at times. We see properties being subdivided and created to address these types of issues, including estate issues. So in this particular situation, again, in a normal process, sanitary sewer would have to be provided to the properties as well as improvements. But because they're not changing the use, they're maintaining the agricultural uses and just the single-family home uses on the property, staff reviewed the waiver and talked it over again we we deal very closely with engineering in these cases and we feel like that the waivers are justified some of the costs that would be involved is that old higby middle road being a rural road it would require utility relocation that's a very expensive proposition for development staff does anticipate the applicant mentioned this and staff would agree that this au is going to develop we don't know when but it's going to redevelop in the prop it's and be at a denser development and at that time it would be appropriate for a denser development utilizing the entire property to bear the cost of the improvements because for one thing let's just say and this is an example okay i'm not i want y'all don't understand i'm just using an example if this got developed as townhouses they would build a sanitary sewer system and bear that cost as part of the development and then this property could go be hooked into that system and that timing makes sense i mean that's reasonable the same would be true with improvements along this this is over 500 feet of improvements in this area now they're asking for a waiver so when when they ask for a waiver and they ask for special dispensation by the planning commission we often make recommendations and in your waiver report staff has made a couple of recommendations one is that at such time that this au property redevelops with or without this property it could conceivably include this property But it may not. You know, it's a lovely large lot, and it may stay like this for another 50, 60 years. I mean, we don't know. But when that does happen, when this develops, this property will have to do the improvements along old Higby Mill Road. That'll be the time to do those half improvements. We're talking curb, gutter, and sidewalk. We're also requesting where they can, this is not part of it, but here, here, and here, they dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way. Now in one location there's already 15 feet, so they just have extended another 15 feet. But we're asking for 30 feet of right-of-way designation or dedication along the property. And then we're also placing a condition that appropriate easements be placed on the property that would allow sanitary sewer to serve these other properties at the time it is available. And that could be satisfied by a note because we may not know the exact location of a local sewer system that would be serving redevelopment that would then have to tap into the trunk line. And I mean, that requires manholes and a lot of design and that sort of thing. So we're not absolutely sure where that may end up, but we just want to make it very clear that that's necessary to allow these homes, these properties, to be placed on sanitary sewer. So with that long explanation of everything that I've just given you, we are recommending approval of the plat as well as approval of the waivers associated with this plat today. Mr. Martin, Ms. Mundy has a question for you. Thomas, I'm looking at this, and then I flipped forward and looked at the aerial of this. On the yellow plat, where is their access, ingress and egress, access? They share an access. Part of the reason they're platting this is to get that worked out. Okay. Yeah, so they share an access at that point, which is a good thing on Old Higby-Mill Road, shared access. Okay. But when you get further up on the property, and when I was looking at the aerial of it, it ends up more on one property than the other before you get up to, so is there, I guess there's an agreement to share that? Yes, it's our understanding that there's a lot of family agreements being worked out among them. All right, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Stephen Vickroy. I'm the attorney for the applicant. All of the conditions that are on the revised staff recommendation, obviously we agree to, and that's why we're here today. But what I want to talk about is the number 14 on the revised, and I understand your paper might be blue. Mine's obviously not. But with that, the issue there says to resolve it. What I want to clarify first, with regard to the subject property, the affected property in yellow and the immediate 1.8 acres to the south which would be to your left on this is actually not owned by the partnership it is actually owned in percentage interest by family members so with that that's why there's some consolidation issues that have been worked out the 1.8 acres is actually going to be consolidated with the large tract in green so that it can meet i believe a 10 acre requirement when it was originally done and that's one of the conditions of that and we obviously agree to that but the the ownership of these two tracks goes to my discussion of this particular item number 14. the temporary structure actually in my opinion is improperly labeled It is a small office trailer that still has its axles and wheels on it, and then obviously a hookup to be pulled. So, in my opinion, it never really should have been drawn on any of the development plan documents or on the proposed plaid itself, because it's really not a structure. There's no pad there. There's no foundation. So in my opinion, it's not a structure, but it's almost a mobile vehicle. It doesn't have its own power, though. So with that said, the fact that it crosses the boundary line should have no effect on whether a plaque could be recorded or whether a development plan could have been approved because it's just sitting there and could be moved at any time. but my client owns an interest obviously in the affected tract in yellow and he owns an interest in the 1.8 acres behind it so as an owner whether it be as a tenant in common or if he owned 100% of the property he still has the right to use it for whatever and if he wants to leave that mobile trailer there until it's appropriate for him to do so I believe he has that right under the law and i don't know if it's a proper condition to prevent the recording of the final record plan so with that said if i need to provide the department of law with the you know the legal justification for this you know my client as a as a tenant in common with his family members has the right to use that property as much as they have the right to use that rear 1.8 acres after were done so with that said requiring uh the removal of that since it in my opinion is not a structure um i think just kind of places a burden on my client that even though he can do it he shouldn't have to do it just to get this plaque recorded he could do it anytime so with that said that's the only issue i wanted to address with regard to these items but i'll be glad to answer any questions mr vickrard could you clarify is it still on wheels or has it been yes so but it's immobile no currently it could be pulled so you could move it yeah it could but we're just saying it should be a requirement to do so obviously we're going to be subject to whatever this commission decides but i'm just saying since he doesn't have a legal obligation to move it i don't know that creating one is something that this commission really should do to permit the plat to go to record i mean these houses have been there this is now the 60th year i know that that mr martin referred to him being there for some time but they were the last one was built in 1959 i believe so we're talking about something that has been in existence for a long time we're not trying to upset the apple cart, so to speak. We're just trying to make things right. Thank you. Well, not yet. Don't leave yet. Any questions? I have one, if no one else does. I'd like to ask the staff about this. He's recommending that number 14 be changed because he says the removal is a temporary structure and it shouldn't be there. How do you all feel about that? I would point to the definitions in your zoning ordinance. It says mobile home. I believe this is a mobile home. It's used as an office, a mobile home with wheels. It doesn't have any water hookup. It doesn't have any sewer hookup. It really is a small construction office trailer. Any, I would, that hasn't been determined by staff. I'm not aware fully, perhaps. But I would state when we talk about structures that under your zoning ordinance definitions, any factory built structure with or without a permanent foundation as defined in KRS. 227.550, which is designed and constructed on a permanent chassis to permit occupancy for, and it goes on. I think we're in an area where I think we could make the argument that it is a structure, frankly. I think we could. I don't want to spend an hour here in front of this body doing that, obviously. This is from your zone change as well, this issue. That's why it's carried over to the plat. Much of what we're dealing with here, unfortunately, we're trying, again, yes, we want to talk about legal requirements. We want to let this be done. There are a lot of family agreements apparently impacting this, which we don't believe falls under your purview, by the way. Okay. Ms. Wade, did you? Okay. To Mr. I think we're willing to resolve that issue. Just say resolve. If it is a structure, it has to be set back. So at this point, it's certainly not performing. So the word resolve sort of takes care of this, is what you're saying. Resolve the removal of temporary structure. So they're willing to talk to you further about this. Mr. Penn, did you have a question? I think they answered that. The question to me is that if this is an issue, and I assume it's on the line between the two pieces of property, is that correct? Fortunately it is, yeah. Well, if that thing can be moved, why don't you just move it back on your side of the line? Well, if you're going to require it, my guy will do it. I'm just asking if that's a solution. That is a solution. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? Okay, thank you for the time being. Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this? Okay, Mr. Billings. Chairman Wilson, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, my name is Nathan Billings with Billings Law Firm. and I represent the other property owners for this property. So for context, I'm going to identify the property owners and sort of give you some context for some of the issues today. At the outset, I'm going to say this. We don't have any objection to the waivers being asked, but there are multiple issues that still need resolved before the final record plaque could be approved. I'm going to walk through those, and one of them is conditions that staff is asking for the green properties to have on them for something that's being asked to plaque a yellow lot. So you're being asked today to give waivers that would require future owners of other lots to do stuff. And I can't agree to that for my clients because we didn't file the application. Our lots aren't being subdivided, and yet this would impose burdens upon us, and we're not the applicant. This lot right here is the original house of Ms. Waits. And Ms. Waits had two daughters, Mrs. Moore, who lives here today. and Mrs. Fain lived here, and Mrs. Fain had two daughters, Mrs. Moore who lives here, and Mrs. Waits who lived here. When Mrs. Fain passed away, this house went basically to her daughters, and Mrs. Waits was a 50% owner, and Mrs. Moore was a 50% owner. In the process of time, Mr. Raymond Waits, who's the applicant today, has acquired 50% interest from Mrs. Moore. He acquired a one-third interest from his mother, and he has acquired a one-third interest from his sister. So today he owns five-sixths of this house and property here. One of my clients, if that makes sense, Melinda and Brian McLaughlin, own a one-sixth interest in this property here. There is a lawsuit that was settled two and a half years ago by which we reached a settlement agreement. And my clients agreed to convey to Mr. Waits their one-sixth interest by quick claim deed in this property here in exchange for some other considerations. One of them being that this property needed to be subdivided from this entire tract right here. Because, Mr., there is an old will, and so there's some legal documents, But basically, this three-acre tract had been subdivided informally through no formal documents, which is what's created this quandary of the need for a zone change and for today the final record plaque. So as of we stand here today, there's an agreement in place that requires two of my clients to convey their 1-6th interest by quick claim deed to him. But we have to have a final record plaque in order to convey it to him, if that makes sense. The back 1.8 acres of this three-acre tract is owned 50% by Mrs. Moore, one-third by Mr. Raymond Waits, who again will become the full owner of this, one-third by Brenda and Brian McLaughlin, who are my clients, and also one-third by the sister, Brenda Barbieri, who has conveyed her interest in the house already. So it's already very, very confusing legally. We have no objection. We had no objection to the zone changes you may require, but we raised certain issues about the subdivision of the property that everyone agreed was going to be pushed off to the final record plat stage. So where we are today, there is a plat in the chain of title that says, let me step back. There's a property here that's not highlighted in green that's owned by a partnership called the Waitsmore Partnership. So there's another owner in this process. And this track down here is also owned by the Waitsmore Partnership. So as of right now on this plat, it's going to be very confusing, but this is why I want to walk you through it. Mrs. Moore's house, she owns 100% of. There's an easement that's going to partially cross her lot that you asked about, Ms. Mundy, which we've met with them and we're walking through. I think we'll have an agreement on that. There's an existing driveway that's shared, and we need to clarify that there's a 30-foot easement, basically that runs down the middle of the property line, 15 foot on each side, so both sides have permanent access from the road. This property right here is owned by Mr. Raymond Waits and his wife, 5-6th, and 1-6th by Melinda and Brian McLaughlin. The back of the 1-8th is owned by Mrs. Moore, 50%. Raymond, 1-3rd, I mean 1-6th. Melinda and Brian one-sixth, and Brenda one-sixth. And this property is owned by the partnership. We have no objection to a final record plat. We do have issues with the plat that has been drafted and submitted to staff in a couple of areas. We don't have any objection to the waivers that are being asked for on this lot. We do have exception to the Planning Commission making a decision that grants waivers for this parcel here. but would impose obligations upon this lot or this lot in the future as we're not the applicant, and those lots aren't actually being subdivided. The reason they're on this plat is, one, because there's an easement that needs to encroach upon the property, and number two, there's a prior platted agreement that says this back 1.8 acres shall be consolidated with this farm at the time of basically sale. There's an agreement in place that provides that. So it has to have the consolidation marks here and here. What I don't want to do is, some of those improvements may need to be made, and probably do need to be made, but I can't agree that the planning commission has the authority to obligate those owners to do things when the waiver is only being asked for this lot. I think there's things that who knows what the subdivision regs would say or would control when this property is developed. It may be that this is part of that, it may be it's not. And maybe this house here, which is not part of this plat but it's being identified, also has development issues. What we would suggest is there are ten things that I have emailed Matt Carter at Vision about correcting on the plat. If in fact you're going to grant the waivers, and we don't have a problem with the waivers. We just think that the waivers should only apply to this property. And basically it should say any of those improvements need to happen at the time that property is developed and not obligate the others. The other issues raised about is this little structure that's here. My understanding is that if there are wheels left on this trailer, that they have long since dilapidated and that you would have to do work to get that trailer to move today. We actually raised this at the zone change hearing, you may recall, where we said there's a trailer on the property boundary line. And you're going to have a building that's half on a residential and half on an agricultural. And it doesn't matter about their legal right to have it or not. The issue is you can't have a zone line run through the middle of a building. And therefore, we kicked the can down the road until today. So we agree with staff that says there should be a resolution of that that requires that structure to be removed from the property boundary line. And the reason it is important is this. This is not something that you're going to vote on today, but there's an operating business at the back of this lot. that is a non-conforming use with the residential zoning. And there's an agreement in the zone change that allows that continuing, that office is used for that purpose. That office needs to be addressed today, though, although the non-conforming use is not a part of any hearing. So with that, I would respectfully submit that, one, you all can approve the final record plat today with the waivers, but don't make the conditions for improvements on anything other than the subject 1.2 acres. Two, ask that the trailer be removed from the property boundary line, either removed altogether or put on the agricultural parcel. It doesn't matter to me. And number three is the plat is submitted, still doesn't have all the correct property owner signatures, and I just want to make sure that we don't have a situation where they submit a plat to staff and it is inadvertently overlooked and it is recorded without having all of my client's signatures on that plat. Because that gives us to make sure that all of the other little things that we have need to be corrected. And some of them are minor, but the deed references, for example, aren't correct. We told them we give you our title work. Those are cleanup items. They're not items to fight about today. But if we make sure that we have a provision that says all of the property owners for this plat sign off on it, everything will have to be resolved before it's done without having to have additional legal fights or be back here before you own a subsequent hearing. So thank you all. Anyone else would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, we'll come back now to the staff for a rebuttal or to get some clarification on a couple of things. Frank, Frank, could you hand me a clean hand? They're right there. I think staff would start off by making sure we all apparently agree this is the record plat. We are subdividing property. This is the platted property. and it will be the responsibility of the person who's going to prepare this plat and stamp it that he brings it to us with all the appropriate information and all the appropriate ownership signatures and when staff of course will be looking for that however i'd like to make a point your subdivision regulations they're not overly concerned with who the owner is or who the applicant is what they require are public improvements and at this stage public improvements are required on this property and they've asked for a waiver of those public improvements if they don't want to share responsibility for those public improvements which are required right now today then there is a very simple solution because this is part of the plat is it not Yes, it is. This is on the plat as well. All the green is on the plat along with the yellow. They can bond them. That's done. They can bond these improvements. There's a solution. Everything go forward. They can all sign it and they can all agree to bond the improvements. Now, the question before you is if you're willing to grant a waiver of these improvements, somewhere down the line, yeah, I mean, they're going to have to be done, and they're going to have to be done by either these applicants, owners, or developers of the property. Now, again, you could require Mr. Waits to put the improvements in on his property. Frankly, I'm not sure how sanitary sewer is going to work, and it does seem to be premature. That's why we were sympathetic to the waiver. but again they're required they're required right now folks and pardon me members of the commission so uh staff would just say that they may not want to have this responsibility but as of today by submitting this plat by agreeing to this plat they do have the responsibility to provide public improvements on this on this property that's what they've agreed to because they filed a plat Okay. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Oh, and by the way, the structure, briefly, yes, I think staff would stand by the position that it is a structure. And it says resolve for a reason. Staff will be happy for them to resolve it among themselves, demonstrate that to staff, and prior to certification. Okay, Mr. Billings, I'd like to, you've heard what Mr. Martin has said, and I was trying to record the comments that you had related to your concerns. So briefly, we don't have an objection to the waiver of these improvements being made at the time of this final development plan. Our objection is to forcing our property to pay for those improvements on his lot. That's the objection. And here's why. Today, there's already a final record plat or a subdivision plat for that parcel. I don't need another final record plat today. It already exists from, I don't know, 20 or 25 years ago. There's already a plat for this lot right here, and there's already a plat for this lot right here. Those were done when the back of the farm was sold off in two different stages back in, I want to say the late 80s or early 90s. I forget the exact year. I'm not objecting to the waiver of installation of the improvements. My objection is to forcing this parcel to pay for improvements on this parcel when the green is developed. That's the nuanced difference that I'm objecting to. Thank you. Okay, any questions for Mr. Billingsley? No, I'll bet. so do you all have any other recommendations did you you heard mr billings uh talk about what his thought was do you have any thoughts about that staff has discussed this at length in house and the simple question becomes how do we get these improvements i mean they're needed and they're going to be needed on all this property at one time. Granted, the green will get developed sometime, and that's a good chance to get those improvements. So it is a legitimate question, how do we get them on the yellow lot? How do we get those improvements? So what would you recommend? Well, one solution would be that the applicant bill them now, but again, that seems premature. So then it would be to bond those improvements. to bond them on that portion, yes. And I think staff, and I haven't had a chance to talk this over with engineering, I'd certainly love to, I don't believe they would need to necessarily bond a sanitary sewer in this particular case because I do believe in the future that will become available. But certainly the street improvements, if this is the direction we're headed, we need to ensure that we'll get the street improvements to Old Higby Mill Road. Okay. Mr. Billings, you have a last crack at it if you want to. I have a question. Oh, okay. Which one? Okay. The alternative is there's two potential alternatives here. One is Mr. Waits would agree to pay the pro-rata cost of the improvements on his lot. I have very little confidence of the ability to reach out in agreement because of the family members' disputes all over the place with respect to that. The second potential one is the Waitsmore Partnership property that's here and Mrs. Moore's property here. We just don't consent to a final record plat on it. Our agreement says that we agree to subdivide this lot here, and so we just change the final record plat and remove the other two green parcels, and we do a separate minor easement plat to create the easement there, so we just attack it from a different legal process. I think that's less than desirable, but it's possible to do that. We are in no way disagreeing with Mr. Martin's comments that improvements need to be made along over the HB Mill. And for this to develop, those have to be made. I don't know when it will develop. There's additional property up here that the Waitsmore Partnership owns that will conceivably be part of the same development. Our objection, again, is that Mr. Waits would basically get the free pass for the improvements on his lot at the expense of either my clients or somebody we sell to, which they'll deduct from our purchase price or from the purchase price. That's the inequity that we're concerned about with respect to this. Sir, you'd like to make a final comment? Well, I was just going to offer a proposal that it be a condition of the development of the surrounding properties. Make that applicant acquire these easements from the property owners. Obviously, as we look at this, the potential development will more than likely include both the property being subdivided today in yellow as well as Mr. Waite's parents home that's in white as well as all the green property. But rather than force anybody to pay anything today or to create an obligation on them when they may not be the owners later on, is to require the applicant that may be seeking a zone change for some or all of this property to acquire those easements from the individual owners at that point in time. That is what the staff recommended. That is what the staff has recommended. That's part of the waiver. That would be a condition of the waiver. That would be a condition of the waiver. Okay, I apologize. I obviously didn't read it closely. We are anticipating that it will redevelopment someday, and the cost will be borne by redevelopment. There is no guarantee, however, that Mr. Waits' property will be part of that development, and that's our concern. There's no guarantee that the white portion that is not a part of this plant will be part of the redevelopment. I mean, we have no way of knowing. But our obligation is to ensure that the appropriate public improvements be. Not just on the Ag tract, but also on Mr. Waits' tract. Right. Yes. Okay. And I would envision that any kind of deal that would be struck between the owners and the applicant would address that as well. Obviously, who pays for it is probably a private agreement between you all. Right. I don't know that family members. Passed out today. and put in black and white today. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Mundy has a question. Mr. Billings, could I ask you a question? In light of your comment about being concerned that the yellow block, I'm going to go to blocks because that's my feeble mind maybe, the yellow block, you're concerned about them being forced to do improvements on the front, Yet the yellow block, as I'm looking at the aerial, is also becoming, they are giving up a portion that becomes part of the green block behind them. As I'm looking at the aerial where there's a square building. In behind that, they are adding that to the green. So today there's a three-something acre lot that looks like this. That's correct. And this is basically, it's not quite half, but I'll say it's subdividing it in half. It's essentially half right here so that Mr. Waits can have fee simple title to the house and yard around it. Correct. But you are concerned about the folks in the green paying for the sidewalks and improvements for the folks in the yellow. But the folks in the green, in my mind, are gaining anyway because they're gaining extra portion of land to add to the green. Well, we're actually, so this is owned by the partnership. The folks here already own this. They're not gaining anything. They already own this, and there's no dispute about the ownership of the back. What this is, all of this is intended to do is that Mr. Waits claimed he should have 100% interest in this from his grandmother, and the legal documents don't support that. So there was a lawsuit, and so this is to clean up those claims. No one in the back is getting anything more than they already have. What's actually happening is people in the front gave up stuff they had through another settlement agreement that doesn't matter. So they're not giving up, they're not getting anything more than they already have today. So that's already gone. That's right. And there's today a recorded plat that already requires this entire tract to be consolidated with this tract at the time of sale. The Planning Commission has already required that. So this isn't a new consolidation. What's really happening is the 1.8 acres is losing 1.2 for development in the front, which actually impairs the ability of development long term. Again, we're not disputing that the improvements would need to be made. Okay. What we're saying, though, is this parcel, whether it is us directly or indirectly, should not be required to pay for improvements on this frontage if, for some reason, Mr. Waits either still lives there and doesn't want to sell, or he sells it to a different developer and puts it in other single-family homes. He is getting a benefit because of the way this would work out without any attributable cost, and my clients would bear the cost. And there would be a cost to it. I don't know what it is. It depends on the cost of construction and excavation, all that stuff. at the time it's developed. But the point is, he is getting something for free in that case, which is he's getting the infrastructure at somebody else's cost. And that's the objection my clients have. Okay, Mr. Penn has a comment, question. Yeah, this is a classic case of we didn't vet this at the subdivision committee because we didn't have all this information. This was not brought to us at the subdivision committee. And that's the reason we're in a situation right now where we're trying to negotiate on the fly, so to speak. And this is the very reason we have subdivision committees, is not to bring these type of problems to the Planning Commission when they can be resolved before that at the committee level. So I don't know how you go with this. You hear the staff recommendation, and I understand that. But the last thing the Planning Commission ought to do is get involved in family disputes over 1-6, 1-3, 1-5, whatever that is. That's a totally private matter that needs to be taken care of before it ever gets to this level. And I just make that as an observation. Okay. What I'm going to do as chair is close out the meeting to the audience and bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion of some kind. Now, let me say this for the record. I agree with everything Mr. Penn said. This should have been worked out at the committee level. I mean, we're working out here as though we're operating as a committee as a whole. Yes. May I then comment on that, sir? Your adopted schedule requires the waivers be filed the day before committee. Staff really couldn't be prepared to discuss waivers and therefore dispute over responsibility for improvements at the committee. and that's just a consequence of your schedule. Yes, go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Penn. Irregardive of that, Mr. Martin, you know, we do have the ability to postpone for 30 days. And so let's just, if we're going to get frank and honest, let's be real frank and honest here. We chose not to do that, and we probably should have. So I just don't want this thing to get to repeat itself because this is the very idea. This is when this needs to be solved. And Mr. Billings didn't present all this to us at the subdivision. And so I'm not trying to make it any more complicated than it is because you can't get it much more complicated than it is. Any other comments? Well, you see, let me put it this way. my recommendation would be that we either continue this or postpone it, you know, and move along. Because quite frankly, I think the recommendation, I thought Mr. Billings' comments were on target, but unfortunately they're late for us to make a full consideration for it. So, but that is just the thought for the chair, and that is to either, what should we continue or postpone? Either one of us okay? You probably want to continue unless you would like to hear all this again. Okay, I think continue then. And also you need to note the date that you have to take action by on this. When is the? Well, on your agenda it says August the 4th. August the 4th, okay. So, you know, unless there's an agreement on behalf of the parties to extend it beyond then, you have to act by then. Okay, and that seems reasonable. And then you all can get together and work out these details and bring them back to us. A motion is in order. What do you want to do? well we got to decide about this agreement just because of the date august the 4th we won't meet again before uh when is the planning commission has a meeting on july the 25th it's normally our zoning items meeting so we you can postpone it two weeks and ask the applicants and their family members to try to work out an agreement related to the infrastructure we have to take action August the 4th, no later than August the 4th, but we have a meeting on the 25th. Yes. Okay, that continues. Yes, but I need a, Mr. Nickel. I just have one comment. If we are going to postpone this, I'll continue. Excuse me, if we are going to continue this, would the applicants please resolve the removal of the temporary structure before this is brought back in front of us? That's my request. Okay. That's an easier question. I'm getting ready to say I'll help push it out myself. Okay. I'll get you a tractor and we'll take care. Okay. We need a motion to continue this. Okay. And then we will say until I say that continue to the 25th. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move continuance of PLN FRP 1914 Wattsmore Limited Partnership property to July the 25th meeting. Okay. Do I have a second on that motion? Second. Okay. It's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we postpone PLN... Continue. Continue. Continue. I'm sorry, continue PLN 19-14 Waitsmore LTD Partnership Property until July the 25th. Additionally, the motion should contend that we also all get a subscription to Ancestry.com. I'm just kidding you about that. Any discussion, any other discussion on the serious motion? And now would you please vote when it comes on your screens? Okay, thank you. That motion carries. July 25th. All right. What's next? Page 3, development plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, We have the next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page three. It is a major development plan, 19-27, JFG Enterprises. We have circulated to you at your seats a green piece of paper that has revised conditions. This actually was prepared for you at your last meeting when a postponement was requested by a neighbor. And so that's the good news, bad news. The good news is this is a development plan. Things have been worked out for the most part. There is a neighbor's concern. That's the bad news. I'm teasing. But there is a neighbor's concern. It's one of the conditions on the plan, but I believe all those things have been resolved. So with that, we are out on Athens-Boonesboro Road. We have an access road in this location. It's part of this final development plan. It is an industrial access road. This area in here is part of the original development plan that was approved with a motel and a restaurant in this location. What is driving this development at this point are these two industrial buildings, 42,000 square feet and approximately 40,000 square feet. You can see the parking and the access aisles that are associated with this. They are meeting their parking. They're certainly not overbuilding the parking. And this particular area, as you all recall from the zone change, there is landscaping required in this location. Here's the interstate. This plan does a good job of showing you the stream here. This property is heavily impacted by steep slopes and by the stream and some other considerations, environmental considerations on this property. Now, they show the street being constructed. They've had to adjust it somewhat. And here's the two neighborhood concerns. And first of all, this street has to adjoin the neighboring property, the right-of-way. There can't be what we call a spike strip that would prevent access in the future. In addition, as you all are well aware, this is a pump station. In Lexington-Faylor, Urban County Pump Station, this location, they had contemplated the possibility of relocating that pump station at one time in the trunk line, and obviously that is a tremendously expensive and engineering, it's a challenging endeavor. So their intent is to go ahead and utilize it. So from the neighbor's perspective, they would like to have an easement that would allow them access to the pump station. And that is the purpose of one of the conditions on your handout, which is to denote that easement. We want to make it clear, we agree with the neighbor that the intent of that is to allow them to access this pump station. We would also state to the Planning Commission that this in no way is anything that would predicate this property in this location coming into the urban service boundary, because it's not in the urban service boundary at this time. It may develop and become part of the urban service boundary someday. And for that reason, access to that pump station could be important, as well as access to the industrial road. So that's the reason for those. But again, no one is stating at this time that there's any preconceived notion on the expansion of the urban service boundary. With that, again, as I stated, this is a final development plan for the industrial buildings that you see in purple there at the rear, along with associated parking. We have pretty standard conditions. I would point out that there is no need for them to resolve the timing of the forced main relocation, that's item 12, if they don't intend to relocate it, which is staff's understanding at this time. And then they do need to resolve the timing of a waterline relocation. Again, this site's challenged. It's challenged environmentally. There are a lot of easements currently on this property, and there's an easement conflict here. There's a waterline conflict, and it's going to be relocated. Those are all standard things that people have to address when they develop a piece of property. This piece of property happens to have its fair share of challenges in that regard. So, again, it's just a matter of denoting the timing and how they'll address that, which they will, of course, during the actual construction and submittal of infrastructure plans on the property. With that, staff is recommending approval of the development plan. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, my name is Nathan Billings, and I represent our Visionary Capital Partners, which is the developer of this property. We completed a zone change on this earlier this year. We were heard by you all in, I believe, January. city council approved it first of march and since then we've been working on final development plan there's some changes to the back of the property here since that preliminary plan with the zone change since this this design is as close to final as we can get now that we better understand the existing pump station issues the slope stream and just the plethora of easements that cross this property. If I were to take off all of the parking lots, take off the buildings, you would see basically a massive tic-tac-toe game without regard to parking lots or buildings just with the easements on here, which include overhead electric, forced main sanitary line, regular sanitary sewer, water lines. They're just all over this property. We agree with the staff's changes of recommendation that is before you. Just I'm going to go through them. Number ten is to denote the sanitary sewer easement to the adjoining property. It's actually not, doesn't show on this version, but right up here, if you recall, there were three things that the adjacent neighbors who own this property appear, ask for the zone change. One of them was, they said, well, we want access to this pump station in the future. And we said that that pump station is exclusively reserved already to this property, properties across the road here, and the Forest Main Line that comes across the road from the Blue Sky area. And it specifically says there's no additional capacity here for anybody else. But, so you can't use this pump station ever. But we agreed to say, all right, we will allow you, we will make sure that we include a connection, an easement line. It's not their easement, it's the city's easement. From the property line to the sanitary, to the forest main sanitary sewer line, it's on the preliminary plan, it's on here today. So they have access to an existing sanitary line that then will connect to the pump station. I don't know if they can ever use it, but what we promised and what we represented at the zone change has been accomplished. So that's note 10. Revised note 11 is just a cleanup note, which is done. Number 12, revived note 12, talks about resolving the timing of the force main relocation. And that specifically is the pump station is right here. And currently, you'll see it. It's hard to see probably, but there's a line right here, which is the existing force main. What's going to have to happen is it's going to come across from Blue Sky to here, down through the buffer zone, across to here, and then this force main continues on. So we're going to have to do that. The process for that is going to just be through the engineering and construction phase, and that is we will have to construct this line. We then put a temporary pump in to connect the two. We disconnect this pump, reconnect this pump, and disconnect this pump. It's not cheap. It's not expensive. But the timing of it is just during the construction phase. The next note revised is 13, resolve the timing of the water line relocation. There's a water line that's going to run through here that we have plans with Kentucky American Water. We've got draft construction drawings that would be required and potential new easements. All that's in place and being processed. Again, we can't build on here until that's resolved anyway. And revised note 14 says the note to AR setback around the pump station lot, which is right here. Earlier this week, we filed a board of adjustment application for a variance with respect to those setbacks. So it still needs to be noted on here, but it's not what you all will hear, but we'll be asking for a variance just regarding that setback. At the zone change hearing, you may recall Mr. Murphy represents the, I refer to him as Begley's, but it's a more complicated ownership structure to the farm to the north. That farm is not in the urban service boundary. It cannot be developed today. I'm not smart enough to figure out what will or won't happen on that property. But they raised three issues. The first one was they said, well, we want to make sure that when your entrance road here is, it stubs into our property. We said absolutely, and our drawings continue to show that. Second, as they said, the industrial local road that's going to run along here, they don't want a spite strip, which is a small strip of land that would be privately owned that would preclude some type of access between the property here and, say, here or somewhere along that. And we said, sure. So what we've done is we created the right-of-way from this point all the way to this point adjacent to the property line, which means at some point they can tie in. I mean, it won't be right here because of the location, but they could tie in somewhere down here farther. At the time of their choosing, the time will be on their property, but there's no spite strip. And the third thing they ask for is access to the pump station, which I talked about a minute ago, which, again, what we said is exactly what we did. We will create an easement on our property to connect to the existing sanitary force main line so that if there's ever some opportunity in the future you can use it, you've got the connection or the city has the connection to be able to use it on there. With respect to that, we agree with staff's recommendations. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience likes to speak to this particular agenda item? The only thing I'd like to introduce in the record is just a copy of the privilege fee agreement that shows the exclusive use of the property, of the privilege, of the, I'm sorry, the exclusive use of the pump station is the private agreement between the city and the predecessor owner of title, which basically says it's not a public pump station that anybody can access. It is exclusively reserved capacity for this property and the one across the street. Okay, thank you. That's already, it's a public document, but it's a city document we want to introduce to the record. Thank you. My name's Dick Murphy. represent encore partners which is the yeah there should be an extra one coming around here if i could get an extra one back to give mr billings i'm going to put it up on the screen here's the I represent Encore Partners. If we could go back to the development plan for just a second, I want to explain a few things. We agree with the staff recommendations as described by Mr. Martin. We're in agreement with the conditions as proposed by Mr. Martin. Now what Mr. Billings has proposed, there's a little nuance in there. I have to explain to you what that nuance is because it's a little important to us on this. Encore Properties owns the property to the north. We are, I think, the only adjoining property owner because this property is bounded by 8th and Spoonsboro Road and the interstate. Well, they've got some other properties down there, but we're the only one on the north. The previous development plan showed that this pump station was going to be relocated over there. It was shown on your development plan when the zone change came through in January. The pump station was going to be located over here. Right now as it stands, and it did not show any building back here. This building was not on the development plan. 40,000 square feet, 400 feet long, 100 feet wide, an acre. That's 40,000 square feet, about an acre undercover. And we don't have any problem with this. We don't have any problem with them developing the property, put it in there. We appreciate them working with us on the location of the road and the other items. And there's just a nuance on the sewer issue here. And that is that there's an existing utility easement coming from our property down to the pump station. That exists right now. You can put sewers in utility easements. We want to have access to the pump station. We have it right now through the utilities. And I want to make clear, too, we know we're outside the urban service boundary. We know we have no right to develop. We know that whatever action you take on this plan has no relation as to whether we can develop or not. However, I have been around long enough to know that when the study was done 20 years ago about what properties are going to come in, are topographically best for future development, this property was at the top of the list. I know you're going through a study right now to determine where expansion should be, what the triggers would be, and all that sort of thing. And I know we're subject to all that. So I want to make it clear, we're not trying to gain any advantage or some arguing point that we ought to come in. What we're trying to do is save issues, save duplication of services in the future. I've worked with a lot of properties in the expansion area, and so many times it's a shame. We find out that people have to duplicate sewers and that sort of thing because they didn't have easements into existing nearby sewer lines and that sort of thing. It's been a true shame. I had one client who had to build a sewer line through 25 people's backyards to get to the sewer line just because an easement wasn't reserved for it. So right now, as it stands, we have an easement into that pump station. So if we could go to the handout I gave you, I want to reflect what happened at the zone change hearing and what the property owners agreed to. You can see this is the excerpt from the minutes on January 24, 2019, which is when they got their zone change. And I came up at that point. I said we had the concerns about not being a spite strip, and there's no spite strip there. Number two, though, on there, which I've highlighted in yellow, says, I asked for a condition that says show sanitary sewer easement from property to the north, that's my client's property, to the proposed relocation site of the new pump station. And down below, I highlight where Mr. Billings said, he said they are in agreement with Mr. Murphy's notes here. So they agreed that we could have a sewer easement into the new pump station site, because they were going to take away the old one. We just said we wanted to have an easement into the new one. Now, Mr. Billings today seems to be saying, I didn't really mean that. Now, we're not going to give you back an easement into the pump station, which there is an easement right now. We're going to give you an easement into a force main, if we could go back to the development plan. We're going to give you an easement to the force main, not in the pump station. There's a force main going somewhere through here. And he says, well, give an easement down here, but we're not going to let it go all the way to the pump station. We're going to stop it here, and at some point you can maybe get into the force main there. Well, here's the problem with that. To get in the force main, you have to build a pump to get in the force main. You have to build another pump station to get into the force main. So that means that if this property could ever develop, we'd have to be putting another pump station right here to pump into the force main, because we don't have a gravity easement to get to this one. We had Palmer Engineering look at this property. There are two easy ways to do this. Two easy ways to do this. If you can see, this is not a colored version, but one has an easement coming down here, the side of the parking lot, going into this pump station here. The other one comes down here. Gravity's down the low point into the pump station there. That's just two examples of how we could get in there. Now, I think this involves two of the basic principles of planning and zoning law. Number one, if you agree to something when you get your zone change and you tell the planning commission you're going to do it, you do it. You don't change it after you got your zone change and come in and say, oh, we're not going to let you back in. We're not going to let you in the pump station, which you have an easement for now. we're just going to let you into this force main, which is going to require us to build a pump. Number two is, when you build a building to block an easement, a 40,000 square foot building or any building over an easement, to block it, you supply alternative easements. That's what we're asking for. Those are two basic principles of planning and zoning law. You do what you say you're going to do when you get your zone change. Those are really binding, I think. and number two if you block an easement you supply a new easement here basic pretty simple as i said i want to emphasize we're not saying we we're in the urban service area but i've as as you know this property borders it at some point 30 years from now it may it may get in and we want to simply have planned for the future on this just as it is now with the utility easement going in that pump station so again we agree totally with the staff conditions as explained to you by mr martin thank you any questions for mr murphy is there anyone else here that would like to speak to this particular agenda item okay then we'll move to the rebuttal part and you can take over mr billings thank you i take exception to mr murphy's characterization of my comments at the zone change hearing i actually went back and transcribed exactly what i said at the meeting to know exactly what was said and what was not said and specifically at the zone change hearing there was a note that reads exactly like it said today that created a sanitary sewer easement that connected to the force main easement it's exactly what we represented in the prior plan and it's exactly what's on the plan today With respect to the characterization of my comments, I'm going to read part of the transcript from the Planning Commission hearing. And this is at 232.03, and this is Mr. Murphy speaking. The second note we're asking for is to show a sanitary sewer easement from the property to the north to the proposed relocation site of the new pump station. And I want to emphasize we're not making any claim on the capacity in that pump station, but right now the pump station is located right here, the current pump station, and there's an easement into it. I'm going to pause here. Second ago, he said we have an easement in there. There is an existing easement that comes from here to here that on a plat says it's a utility easement. It's currently only an overhead utility easement, and his clients do not own that easement. It is not an Encore Properties easement. It is a utility easement. Under the subdivision regulations for LFUCG, Section 6-5C, easements are not owned or controlled or held by the adjacent property owner. And, in fact, they're held by the utilities, and if they're sewer easements, whether forced, main, or sanitary, they're the city's easements. They're not the next-door property owner's easement. Continuing on with the comments, he said, so that's a utility easement which can be used for sewer lines as well. It possibly could be, but that's a city decision, not the next-door neighbor's decision. So there's an existing easement into the pump station right now. We'd just like to preserve the status quo and whatever occurs that the pump station is here to show an easement into that location. Now we know it can move, and as Mr. Billings said, that's a potential location for that relocation. It may not be fixed in stone. So there he's acknowledging that the prior location was hypothetical. And all we're saying is let's just show a potential location, relocation for the easement into that potential location. I go on to state at 2.36 p.m. in 44 seconds. The clarification, I would just have to make sure that we don't know where the pump station is going to be, and we don't know where that easement will be. And the easement is technically not their easement. It's a sanitary sewer easement that is likely to be connected to the force main easement. I don't think it needs to be on there, but we're not opposed to being on there. I was very clear that said it might have to be connected to the force main easement. We never agreed to give them a blanket sewer easement. We never agreed to create a blanket sewer easement in favor of the city. What we're suggesting is, and what we think they're doing, if you could put their revision that they just submitted a second to go back up on the overhead. they're asking us to create for their benefit easements on our property either here or here which could affect our development and which add development costs to our property we don't think we're required to do that as a matter of law specifically and i've not i've got this drawing in the last 24 hours i got it late last night the last one was postponed at mr murphy's request, if you may recall, back in June, I've got a chronology. Basically, it was postponed. We met with them a week later. Two weeks later, their engineer finally contacts us, and from that, we get a revised drawing from their engineer yesterday. So I apologize that this hasn't been fully vetted. I'm only left with the timing that I have from their engineer. This easement that they want to propose cannot run through our parking lot because if they ever want to come through it, it would tear up the parking lot. The fourth main easement can run into the parking lot because the likelihood of that easement being touched again, construction in it, is very, very minor. The easement that they want is a larger, it's wider, full-blown sanitary, not just forced main. And therefore, we certainly can't put it under the parking lot because if they want to try to construct on it, it would interfere with the parking and use of a tenant in the building. So they suggested, well, bring it down here on a steep slope that invades basically the creek line. And so we suggest that what we have said very clearly, and I've read to you the transcript of what happened at the zone change hearing, that there is a sanitary pump station here. It has a forced main easement to it. The next-door property owner wants the ability to gravity flow, it seems, instead of having to possibly have a forced main easement. There's no capacity there today, and they're impeding our development plans. Despite that, we've still said, we'll make sure that you have access to an existing forced main sanitary easement, which it's the city's rights to use anyway. It's not theirs. And if it's a forced main easement, the city can use it. The city engineers and water quality have told us they will not let any other property owners connect to this pump station, that its capacity is reserved. I understand people in the city could change in 25 years, but as of today, there is no legal ability or no practical opportunity to use that easement. So we suggest that what we submitted at the zone change with the note here, what we submitted with our plan, that staff has recommended approval of the plan. There's a note on here, and they've approved that note. Staff didn't say take that note off, that this complies with the staff's recommendation and that it should be approved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, you get one more crack at it, then we'll go to the staff, and then we'll close off, and then if there are additional questions, we'll pick it up at that time. Well, all this was discussed at your zone change hearing back in January. And getting back into that agreement, there is an agreement the city had about building the pump station. If we could go back to the original development plan here, about where the capacity is. It plans out the maximum capacity of that and assigns it to various property owners. We're outside the urban service area boundary. We're not a party to that agreement. but the pump station which is right there is I've as I said I've seen agreements before and as we discussed at the original zone change hearing when you parcel out the maximum density it is unlikely that excuse me maximum capacity it is unlikely that the maximum capacity will be met by the any of this development to the pump station and it's likely that there's going to be capacity left over in 20 years after the development is done and that's because like for this one these large warehouse type buildings don't generate the sewage that other uses do and they're planning out the maximum capacity for the for the use on the property which they should do and there's probably going to be some left over but we talked about all that six months ago at the zone change now mr billings says well i didn't agree to it well he they agreed to a note saying we would have an an easement to the new pump station, an easement to the pump station. Not to the force main, but to the pump station. That's what they agreed to, and even if they didn't agree to it, that's what you all imposed back in January. That's a condition you all opposed. They've known about it since January 24th, that there was a requirement to provide an easement into the pump station. Yes, it's not our easement. It's not an easement to Encore Partners. As all easements are, all utility easements, or sanitary sewer easements especially, they go to the city. The city decides who uses those. All I'm saying is not to preclude having the easement in there, which might be of some benefit. Now they say, oh, don't put it over under our parking lot. It might disturb our parking lot. I'll tell you, if you have that rule that you never put easements under parking lots, you're not going to have many sewer lines around here. Most all sewer lines and utility lines go under parking lots. When they need to be fixed, they're fixed and they're replaced. Now I'm not an expert on sewers. I don't know which is more likely to need maintenance, a forced main or a regular line. Forced main gets a lot more use than a regular line though. So they've already got a force main coming under that parking lot, apparently. I don't see why we can't put a line in there on the side of the parking lot. We don't go under the parking lot. And we just presented these as two possibilities, not to say we've got to have them here or got to have them there, but they didn't seem to know where to put them. So we said here's some examples of where we can do it without disturbing your property. We go down here without disturbing their property in the big area. Every easement reduces the use of somebody's property. Every property has to have easements to serve your neighbors. All the easements are in the name of the city. There's nothing different about this property. As I said, I'm not making a claim that we can come in the urban service area boundary at some time. But when you agree to something, and when the planning commission imposes something back in January, you follow it. And when you build a 40,000 square foot building over an easement, you replace the easement. And that's what it gets down to. Thank you. Thank you. Staff? Any other comments? This is the rebuttal time, you've got a chance if you want to. I don't have a lot to add other than I would like to make it very clear that it is correct. When you have easement conflicts, it is necessary that those easements be addressed, and you can relocate the easement. and that is standard it's done all the time and it's something that is required to be done you have to replace easements when you have conflicts with them and UEs are available for all utilities and for public use when they're labeled UE so and again we don't we don't know what the future will bring but they will have to address that conflict and relocate that easement. Is that it? Okay, now I'm going to open it up to the commission. Just a minute, Mr. Billings. I'm going to open it up to the commission to ask any questions that you may ask, either Mr. Billings, Mr. Murphy, or Mr. Mark. Any questions? All right, Mr. Billings, what is it you wanted to... Mr. Chairman, I've been accused twice tonight of saying something in January and changing our mind tonight. In January, the exact note that's on the plan today was on there in January, and nobody objected to that note. Nobody objected to that note, including Mr. Murphy, and that's exactly what I said. Number two, this process went through the TRC and through the subdivision committee, and all of the departments and divisions of the city and other utility companies have looked at this plan, and none of them raised objections about the locations of the new easements and the removal of the easement that was being referenced under the building. And staff correctly has recommended that the plan be approved as drawn, not to add new easements, because they're all adequately addressed. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Commission, members? Okay, I'm going to close it out now from the audience perspective and bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion. Mr. Nickel? I do have a question. So as we're looking through the staff's recommendations for approval, number 10 said denote sanitary sewer easement to adjoining property. that has been denoted. Is that correct? The answer for the record is yes. They've been nodding their heads. Yes. Any other questions? Okay. Again, any other discussions? Okay. The chair is ready for a motion one way or the other. Thank you. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it. I got plenty of time. Okay, Ms. Mundy. Okay, I'm looking on the plan, and I'm going to read what I see on the plan, and then I'm going to go forward with my motion. Number 18, denoted on the plan, says, access to the pump station shall be provided for during the construction of the proposed development. A curb cut shall be provided for access post-construction. In my mind, that says provision will be made to the pump station. So based on the note I see on the plan and based on the staff's recommendation, I'm going to move for approval of plan PLN MJDP 18-27. 19. I'm sorry. 19-27 JFG Enterprises, Inc., with the 14 conditions as provided by staff. That access is for the city. Right. That's for our access to our pump station. I withdraw. LFUCG. LFUCG owns the pump station, and it's surrounded by private property. It's its own little 20 by 20 lot or whatever size, and they have to give access to us to maintain that pump station. So the question at hand is what kind of access do they need to provide from the pump station to the adjoining property owner, knowing that technically they can't use any capacity of that pump station today. But the pump station can be expanded and an agreement can be amended if or when that land comes into the urban service boundary. So it makes sense that there be some connection, again, a utility easement of some sort to the adjoining property owner. They have one now. It needs to be replaced in one direction or another. I think the applicant's contention is access to a force main is fine. That's more difficult. They'll need a pump station to access that when there's already a pump station right here. So more direct access to the pump station would be more convenient and probably cheaper for the adjoining property owner when or if they ever connect. There is probably a place that will work, and from the staff's perspective, we should try to work that out amongst the two property owners and not have to have the Planning Commission dictate the location of that today. And again, this is a final development plan, so at the plat is when those easements would get recorded, changed. They have to release the easement that's there to build a building, so there'll have to be some process. Ms. Plumlee? Sorry. Thank you, Chair. And at the risk of playing kick the can again today, but we sort of have new info on this one. And in light of what has been discussed so far, it needs a little more thought, so I'm going to move for continuance for PLNMJDP 1927 JFG Enterprises until July 25. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Mr. Mike Owens that we have a continuance on PLNMJDP 19-27 JFG Enterprises. It's ready for discussion. Until July the 25th. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Thank you. Yes, I did second the motion and agreement on this, considering the fact that, you know, alternatives got to that on the ferry like yesterday. Personally, I don't see overly concerns with what Mr. Murphy has offered, but to give everybody a chance to massage it and hopefully come up with an agreement, that's the reason I'm setting the motion at this point's time. Okay, let me step in here just a little bit here. What is it that you, for the continuance, what is it that you want the staff to do, or what do you want the people to do to work out the agreement versus easement? I mean, where I'm a little lost as to what the directions would be toward the staff. If you're asking for a continuance, why are we asking for the continuance? That's the question. Just to clarify. Okay. Okay, to me it seems like there's no ready resolution today. It's a he said, me said sort of situation that maybe with a couple weeks it will quiet and there can be, it can be resolved. Okay. More readily for us to make a decision. Fair enough. Any other comments? I'm not sure. Ms. Bowens. Go ahead. Yeah. Well, I feel almost like I should abstain because I know I'm going to be out of town when you all hear this again. But I think Tracy just said that a lot of what we were talking about could be resolved amongst the parties and staff prior to the final. Is that correct? So if we go ahead and move this today, they can still work out the details. So, again, my tendency would be to go ahead and put it to bed today if that can be resolved according to staff's recommendations. But, again, I'm also doing this when I know I'm not going to be here. Okay. Any other comments? Ms. Plumlee, you – yes, Mr. May – Mr. Penn. I've got a question. I heard Mr. Billings say that they've already applied to go to the BOAR. Is that right? The BOA for the variance. Yeah. BOA. So that doesn't have any bearing on number 14, does it? Okay. Okay. That's just a question. Ms. Blumman, you want your motion to still stand? It does have a bearing. Mr. Penn, it does have a bearing on number 14. Yeah. We don't need to have it. Well, no, they'll either need to denote or fix their boundary or denote the Board of Adjustment's approved variance, which that addresses number 14. My understanding was basically if this was approved today, we have an adjustment of that. The Board of Adjustment would amend what's actually being approved today, would effectively be what's happening. So this note would be current as of today, and the Board of Adjustment would then effectively amend the note. So the note is correct. That's the boundary today. And so what the Board of Adjustment does is corrects whatever you all have approved. Okay, let me come back to Ms. Stallings. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of following up with what Patrick offered, a question for Tracy, I guess, and or the Chair. With, which one was it, number 10, where it does say, to note sanitary sewer easement to adjoining property recognizing that you know we're offering to say further discussion should take place between the parties involved and maybe resolve this would it be helpful to change that to resolve um where did i go so number 10 yeah yeah resolve Senator Seward easement to adjoining property to provide a little bit of direction for everybody. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'll go back to Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Chair. In light of that, if we can solve it today, that would be splendid. So I withdraw my motion. Okay. Well, for parliamentary procedure, you can't. I can't? Oh, you'll have to vote on me. Let me put it this way. I'll tell you. I'll give you a shortcut right quick. Once you make a motion, once it's been approved, and once the chair states that the motion no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the body. But on general consensus, I think we can all agree that Ms. Plumlee would like to withdraw a motion. That's okay by general consent? Fine. That takes care of it. Now, with that said, we're ready for a new motion if you'd like to make one or, yes, Ms. Dorrance. Mr. Chair, in light of what's been said, my motion would be for approval of Plan MJDP 19-27JFG Enterprise Incorporated with the revised 14 conditions change in number 10 to read resolve sanitary sewer easement to adjoining property. Okay. Okay. We got Mr. Horne to make some motion. and Mr. Frank Penn seconds it that we approve PLN MJDP 19-27 JFG Enterprises Incorporated with the 14 revised conditions by staff changing number 10 from denote to resolve. Any other discussion on that motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries. Thank you. Do you all want a break or do you want to keep... And I didn't have to say it. Okay, let's take a five-minute break. Thank you, Carol. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Item D. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is major development in 19-37. It's a Cooper property, which is a portion of Cope, Mitchell, and Cooper properties, now being called Waldorf Way. This is a final development plan. It is located in the expansion area out on Deer Haven Lane. The interesting thing about this property, and this is really very significant to the development of this property, and it's in the title. And that is Cooper Property, a portion of Cope, Mitchell, and Cooper. When this property was originally rezoned, it was three properties, contiguous properties. This would be the furthest to the, I'm going to say north. There's a middle piece and then there's a southern piece. And it was originally proposed as a unified development. Quite a few years went by, no development happened. And this middle piece right here, I believe now has a single family home on it. So what we see today is a proposal on the Cooper part of the property. You can see at this location, here's Deerhaven, is to build. a cul-de-sac with a loop, a street, a local street, again with lots, as you can see in this location, 14 lots. This area along Deer Haven, these lots are, and again, we have an EAMP compliance report for you as well. Just like Todd's Road, we've got urban service boundary on this property. It is adjacent to the urban service boundary. It is a designated scenic resource area. And that is one reason you see this incredible amount of green space. They are required 80% of their property to be maintained as green space. This is identical to what's happened on further out towards Winchester Road on the other side of the interdiction with the Thomas Communication property, the reserve. it has the very same requirements. And that's quite a challenge at times. And so again, they are proposing 9,000 square foot minimum lots. That would be the standard size. Again, like the other plan, fairly standard setbacks. They're having 20 foot front yards and very almost identical setbacks in that regard. They are on the right-of-way, just like the other ones were. We once upon a time in several developments had what we called floaters. And those floating lots were part of the green space, mandatory green space. And that created various issues. One was a maintenance issue for the city once the street was dedicated as a public street. And secondly, you couldn't put a driveway across that without an easement. It's a minor problem, but still, it's kind of a nuisance thing. And so over time, with staff's encouragement, the applicants are going ahead and fronting these lots right on this local street. And this will be a public street. They show a complete cross section with curb gutter sidewalk on both sides of the street to serve this development. Now, there's a photograph. the large body of water these two little ponds right here this is the very upper end of the property and you can see the the creek runs through this this is floodplain there is tremendous amount of floodplain on this property there's another branch of the creek that runs up into the clark property and that that comes in on this property and this is the stormwater management plan for this area of area 2b of your expansion area, EAMP. And you have this large basin. There's the large pond I showed you. Those are the two little ones. And the property is up in this area. So only part of this property was impacted by this large area detention basin. And this was a regional pension basin. It is exactable. It's part of the overall plan. Now, here's the good news for this property. In an agreement with the exactions committee, the Clark property developed the regional basin up here. That's known as New Market. So in essence, this basin is now located up in this area. That really lessens the burden tremendously on this property to address stormwater. Now, they will have to address stormwater, but it should be minimal, along with, as I showed you, the 80% open space. Again, that addresses above and beyond the quality issues that they would have to address. So it does minimize what they will have to do as they move forward this plan with improvement plans in order to address the infrastructure and the stormwater on this property. And again, that's Deer Haven as it heads up towards the interdiction in this area. This is the single largest component of infrastructure in the AMP. There's no boulevards. Sanitary sewer is not an issue. They have access to sanitary sewer in this area. And so you can see on your handout that they have standard sign-offs for a final development plan, preliminary subdivision plan in the expansion area. We have a couple of small cleanup items denote the RSA setback in the urban service boundary, denote the rural service area buffer in landscaping per the zoning ordinance. They need to correct the plan title to match the staff report. That's the correct title. Obviously, we're perfectly happy if they want to market this as Waldorf Way development. But, again, for us to track this development through time, you know we're pretty fanatical about maintaining names because that's how we track things. With that, we come to 16, which is provided the Planning Commission makes a finding that this plan is in compliance with the Expansionary Master Plan, and you have that report before you. And similar to the Todd's Road EAR1 property that you saw previously, this is a very similar layout. Now, the Todd's Road property did not have the 80% open space requirement as this does. But again, it's a very similar, this is 21, 22 acres approximately. so they've got more room for the street and the layout and to get their lots in there than the previous development. But you can see it's similar in that regard. But they have a tremendous amount of open space. As I stated, they have the lots proposed. The others are 6,000. These are a minimum 9,000 square foot lots with similar layout. So the land use and this design is compliant with the recommendations of the EAMP. The EMP, under a community design element, as you all are aware, stresses pedestrian connections. And that is a challenge for this property, and it's just pretty, it's a result of its location that we showed you. And this kind of illustrates it. Again, even though this is the stormwater, here you have Deer Haven. And you have the urban service boundary and the rural area. And this side of Deerhaven is relatively isolated from other areas of your A&P. And that creates a challenge. This is Polo Club to help encourage some of the connections that the A&P encourages. And part of that is because it is a scenic or a rural, pardon me, scenic road. We have several of those. Walnut Hill, Childsburg being one, this one, Deer Haven. And because of that, they are maintained in their rural condition. And they have a 200-foot setback, all designed to try to maintain that rural look. With the scenic overlay on top of that, again, low-density development, scenic overlay, you see a very open, very rural development, very low-density development. Again, that design element is consistent with the AMP. It does present a challenge in terms of pedestrian facilities. Now, they are going to build a sidewalk on both sides of the street, and they're going to serve their neighborhood. There's a trail that's going to be constructed by the government on the opposite side of Deer Haven. That's a government project. So it's a difficult challenge for them to provide a good, strong pedestrian connection to that system. We are recommending in our report that they make provisions to at least allow for a future pedestrian system to go downstream through the greenway. The greenways are envisioned to become publicly owned in the AMP. Of course, as you know, that's up to the council agreeing to take them over. But we're hoping at least to try to tie these original properties together eventually, should it become possible. Granted, there are, and again, staff wants to stress this, there's challenges for this property. I've touched on the infrastructure. Again, there's no EMP required infrastructure except for this basin. And again, as I pointed out before, that basically has now been constructed up in here. So as I said, it will minimize the requirements that they have to meet stormwater management on this property. So staff is recommending approval of this development plan, and we are recommending that you do make a finding that this plan is in compliance with the EMP. And once again, we threw our little thing in there about the 50% landscaping be denoted on these lots. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Ms. Munday has a question for you. I'm looking at the green and yellow pretty little colored map with the lots on it. And I noticed lot number eight and lot number nine go over into the 25-foot floodplain building line. The line runs kind of through those lots. In light of probably those houses needing to have flood insurance, Is that addressed anywhere in, I don't see that addressed anywhere. Again, that's a 25-foot setback off the floodplain. Yeah. And these lots can be situated so that they themselves are not in the floodplain. And they do infrastructure, they do grading, and when they do that, they will then have these, they'll come back with a final record plat, and I suspect that these lots will not be in the floodplain. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Plumlee. Thank you. Just a curiosity question. Can rural scenic roads be widened? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And by the way, that's a wonderful question because it is strongly discouraged in the AMP and the ordinance, but your subdivision regulations, I like this, it's the very last paragraph in your subdivision regulations before you get to the exhibits. and it says that you can address public safety on these rural scenic highways. And they've agreed to a small widening of Deer Haven, and that is to allow fire trucks and emergency vehicles good movement into their subdivision. It'll help pedestrians to a certain extent right along their frontage, but again, that's all that's going to do in that area. And we're hoping that, of course, that most pedestrian will use the new trail system on the other side of the road. Mr. Lawrence has a question. Yes, thank you. One, I'm very pleased to see revisions, which I'm always – I know you didn't do it. I know the applicant did it, but thanks for that. The curious question, and I'm glad that there's no longer a need for a waiver, obviously, But proposed street geometrics, did that change recently? No, they are addressing the subreg requirement for the street section. I just didn't, I didn't remember. They did change it on the new plan. Yeah. Okay. It didn't meet on the original submission. Okay, all right, thank you. Any other questions? Applicant? Yes, in answer to Ms. Plumlee's question, you should say should roadway improvements be needed as a project improvement as defined in Zoning Orts Article 23, that's the expansion area, the commission should require only the minimum improvement to the existing roadway needed to mitigate concerns regarding safety. And yes, so you have that ability to require minimum improvements. Thank you. Thank you. She asked me to mention that I turned in the affidavit for the sign that was posted on site. Again, Rory Cayley, EA Partners. A couple quick items, the road that you're talking about, the internal road, our loop there. So we did increase it to a standard 28 foot wide street, which would allow parking on one side, but it is private, not public. Before we had a smaller private street and the discussion came up about where we'd be able to park. So we widened it, but it still remains private. clarify all 80% of the property is not set up to be greenway. As Tom was talking about the potential as a trail, that was the second item on the compliance statement. So the floodplain area is what he was showing to that is to be greenway. Until that time, the 80% open space of these properties are always HOA maintained. So not to let anyone think that the city was going to take all 80% of that property. Let's see. I wanted to mention, and I was told I was not at a subdivision committee, but the agreement to the widening of Deerhaven, that was if it was going to be an exactable. when you make improvements some of them are you get an exaction credit that has to be worked out through an agreement with the exaction committee I'm told that's the agreement that was made that if these improvements to Deerhaven are exactable that is what they agreed to with that that was it we're in agreement with all the revised conditions and request approval. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Ms. Dawson. Yes, thank you. Rory, since you mentioned HOA and Greenway, with that map, there is a lot of green there. That will be maintained or will it just grow up as natural wildlife or will it be maintained and mowed? The other places where this has been done, the neighborhoods are more complete. It seems to be a mixture. There's one that has some ponds, and there's areas where it was a little more natural than manicured yards. I don't know that there's been an ordinance cited on any of our plans before dictating how it is maintained. Certainly with that much, you're not cutting hay on, it's kind of hard to mow it all. There will be certain buffers that we have to have with the adjoining property owners that may require or provide more of a natural setting. I don't know what the maintenance agreements will be. I imagine each HOA, as they take effect, would be able to modify those as they deem fit. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay. And in that case, I'll pull it back to the commission for discussion or motion. I think Tom wants to maybe clarify the improvements. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. The exactions program under the AMP and under the ordinance allows exactions for capital improvements that are identified in the AMP. So at this time, I believe it's staff's opinion, and I could be proven wrong because this decision could be made above my pay grade. but I don't believe that any improvements to Deerhaven are exactable. Now, that being said, I would also point out that 6-13D, rural scenic highways, is a subdivision requirement. And so this property will be subdivided, and so that's why we're addressing it at this point. But the widening of Deerhaven and staff's estimation is a safety issue and needs to be done, a minimum. And again, I would stress what that says. you all can require the minimum but it's not exactable it's it's a cost of of the development to address public safety issues thank you okay any other questions or clarifications needed okay thank you so now again we'll bring it back to the commission for our additional discussion and our motion Mr. Chair. I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 19-37 Cooper property with the revised 16 conditions. a note of the compliance report provided by the staff for the EAMP. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Brewer, that we approve PLNMJDP 19-37 Cooper property with the 16 conditions provided by staff with findings that this is in compliance with the EAMMP's report. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Scott. Okay, good afternoon. If you would like to pull out your, there should be a peach orange colored sheet. Am I not speaking? I'm sorry. All right. Hold on a minute. Let me lower this down. There you go. See, I'm having a problem. I've got to stand on my tiptoes over here. Can't always get that microphone. Okay, if everybody would pull out their orange sheet. This is for Major Development Plan 19-39 Monticello Mall Pump and Shop Convenience Fuel Store. this is located at the corner of clays mill road and delzand clays mill delzand if you go further up we'll have jesse clark across the street if you come down clays mill there's a it'll be close to keyshire where our burger king is right there this is on the corner they currently have a c store with gas pumps. They're proposing to come in and tear down the existing building and put in a new building with a drive-through. As you can see, there's a drive-through that wraps around the building, and then they're going to put in new pumps. They've kind of relocated their pumps a little bit. They came in and brought us in a revised plan, so we have revised conditions now on the plan. The first few conditions are our typical sign-offs from other governmental agencies. We just still had a few cleanup conditions with some notes from previous plans. We wanted to see an addition of a cross-section for Delzanne Place. On the previous development plan, they're showing the street cross-section for the adjacent property, which the road improvements haven't been done. Since they're tearing down the building and redeveloping the property, we asked for the improvements on Delzanne Place. Clay's Mill Road improvements have been done with the Clay's Mill Road Improvement Project that's gone through there. So we're asking for a revised cross-section for Delzanne Place. Just to have site statistics updated, we like to see totals on all the site statistics, because this development plan included several watts going up the street on Delzan Place. Addition of number of trees planted. They have eight trees planted, but trees have different canopy size, and so they didn't give us information as to what size trees they're planting with that. On the back side of the page, we have two discussion questions. It's a drive-through facility, functionality. The gentleman has been working with, I believe, Traffic Engineering to make the drive-through, to be able to allow the drive-through to go around the building and to the front. The property is a little tight, so they've been working with Traffic Engineering. And then discuss improvements to Delzanne Place and the compliance with the multimodal accommodations. And as I said, we're working to see improvements done to Delzanne Place within the street cross-section. And we'd also like to see connection from the street to the building. This plan doesn't show any connection for the multimodal. So with that, I open it if you all have any other comments or questions. Any questions? Comments? Okay, applicant? Applicant? Yeah, okay. Thank you. I'm Ron Johnson. I'm the engineer for the project. Ms. Galt mentioned that we adjusted. The big thing we did with after the committee meeting was we adjusted the fuel pumps. We had four proposed and we dropped that to three and that cleared up that north area big time and we downsized the canopy from 115 feet down to 85 feet and that cleared the ingress egress issues up we can meet all the conditions that Miss Goss referenced and we can do we are proposing sidewalk and we can provide pedestrian access to the sidewalk of the store and we can do that so. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Yes ma'am. Hi, I'm Janet Cabanis. It's been a long planning session here. I have some comments about mainly the public safety and the traffic problems that this type of plan might involve. The drive through is of concern to me. I know that the planning staff has supported a strong discussion of safety issues. And I'm sure that you're- I did not do that. She bumped the alarm. Uh-oh, I did it? She's right, I think I did. Thank you. Is it on? He said it's a weather alert. It's a routine emergency. That helps. Public safety issues, we have a lot of neighborhoods around there. We have the Stonewall neighborhood, we have the Jesse Clark Middle School, which has many children of early teen years wanting to go across and take advantage of the convenience store. There is a perfectly functioning convenience store and gas station there now without the drive through. The drive through is the major concern that many of us have about that particular area. We want to make sure that it doesn't introduce a hazard that isn't already there, because we have plenty of hazards as it is with prohibited left turns because of getting in parents dropping off their middle school children and leaving after they have dropped off their middle school children. There is a drive through down at the other end in the Burger King already, but this is a more convenient access. It's just right across the street almost from Jesse Clark and we're feeling that many children will want to take advantage of that. One of the things that I have a question about, and this is strictly a question. I don't know whether you get to look into what they serve through the drive through. Is it just like purchase of candy and chips and drinks and cigarettes? Or will there be rotisserie chicken in there where you could sort of order a meal? I don't know whether that is, if there is the purchase of the meal, then the stacking lane for the drive through seems to be a real issue to make it long enough. To make sure we don't have a backup to areas that already have a lot of traffic in them. I kind of do have a question about putting in just one more drive through. I know that this is not a zone change, the comprehensive plan 2018 doesn't apply because it isn't a zone change. And there are traffic regulations for B6, which is what this is, I understand. Even so, we are into multi-modal, aren't we? And we're trying to encourage pedestrian. I heard that they could put sidewalks in. I would like it to be part of the plan that they will put sidewalks in. That is a request. And allowing one more drive through is, well, if you allow yourself one more cigarette when you're trying to quit, that's not a good thing. Allowing one more drive through, when it sets a precedent for the next filling station that comes around and wants a drive through window, it's not just a bad habit. it's a precedent that you probably will have to pay attention to having allowed. Overall, as I said, there have been a lot of words said today. And I'm a little dazed and amazed by what's gone through down here. Mainly all I want to say is please consider very carefully the public safety and the traffic implications of this. Please listen to the staff concerns and I thank you for listening. Thank you. Yes, this is the rebuttal period. Yes, I'd just like to mention we've modeled the drive-through with the stack and we can get one at the window and ten around so we can stack ten cars total. The owner has stated to me in the past that he's got drive-throughs at several locations. And they normally never see more than a three-stack. So I think there's plenty of room. If there was a lot of ordering that required some time, then there's plenty of stack room. There wouldn't conflict with any kind of ingress-egress on the other side. I asked my colleagues, but I have a question. What's your position on the sidewalks? We will put sidewalks in and we will work with staff and connect the sidewalk with a pedestrian walk to the store sidewalk, in front of the store. And we can do that. I mean, we see a way to do that. It's a small site, it's not ideal, but we see a way to do that safely with some signage and some striping, etc. Okay, any questions? Mr. Healy? Yes, sir. The drive-through, is it specific? Are you offering anything specifically or is it general? It's just general. There's not an order kiosk. It's just drive to the window and pick up a gallon of milk, and there will be probably tobacco products and just small items. Mr. Lawrence? I guess this is probably as much of a question for traffic and or Cheryl or staff. In subdivision the other day, it seemed like there was discussion about the drive-through or stacking, the corners, bollards being in the way, being very tight, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Where are we with that now? I revised the plan to more width, larger radiuses, put an offset curve around the back. We put bollards in the corner. We also have a curve along the drive-thru window side to the north, and I shared that with Mr. Parker. Okay. Mr. Parker. I'm Stephen Parker with Traffic Engineering. we've seen a revised plan there was some information missing on the plan about some land in the front and mr. Johnson has relayed to me that that was a he's got an additional seven feet to play with now in a future revised plan so I'm confident that if indeed he does have seven feet we can accommodate a vehicle there for the drive-through. I guess my question you're saying if he has that seven what happens if he doesn't have that seven feet? It sounds like it's still up in the air right now. It is and it's more of a resolve issue. Okay I think we can resolve it. Okay. Because there are some different widths and things we can work out. That's that's where I was headed thank you sir were you were you also not weren't you concerned also about the fuel truck and such like that or I was there is a different type of fuel truck that Clark's pump and shop uses it's not the standard semi that has it's more of what I would call a milk truck size so it's a fixed it's not a pivoting trailer it's a little bit smaller vehicle that was So that's a change as well. Ma'am, if you'd like, do you have any other comments? Do you have any reactions? I mean, based on what you've heard. You have to come over here to the right. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. Well, I guess like it is in many cases, I've heard that it's going to happen and I am being asked to trust that all these things are going to happen, like a smaller size fuel tanker will fill pumps and that won't be a difficulty with all the stacking in the lanes. It would always make neighbors and those of us who are looking at these things more comfortable if that could be written into the final development plan. I don't know what the possibilities of that are, but I'm glad to hear that things are being considered of that nature. Thank you. It's certainty you want to get, and a lot of times it seems like the certainty kind of slips when it finally comes to reality. Yeah, we understand that. Thank you, ma'am. Staff, do you have any final comments? Okay, and I'll close this hearing off to the public and bring it back to the commission for additional discussion. If you have any questions, do that, or you can make a motion. Mr. Penn. I want to thank you all for the progress you made from the committee meeting until now. Public safety was an issue there and I want to comment for doing that. I'd like to move approval of PLNMJDP 1939 with the 16 conditions provided by staff. Could I ask one other question for your revision? that 24 and 25 would be changed from discussed to resolved on the back sheet. You mean 15 and 16? I'm sorry, 15 and 16. Okay, it's a long day. Well, yeah, we can certainly do that. Resolve the drive-through facility functionality. I thought they'd already done that. Okay. We'll change number 15, number 16 as resolved per request of our chairman. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Mr. Healy-Bell, that we approve PLNMJDP 19-39 Monticello Mall pump and shop convenience fuel store with the 16 conditions provided by staff changing discussed in 24 and 25. No, 15 and 16. I'm sorry, 15 and 16. To resolve. Discussed. It's a long day. Any other discussions on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. Motion carries. We have one other major item to handle, and that will get a report from the nominating committee. Mr. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The nominating committee presented a slate to the work session last week, no, the third week, and that was approved. And today we would offer the officers for the year to follow as being President Mike Owens, Chairman, Vice Chair Bill Wilson, Secretary Karen Mundy, and Parliamentarian Frank Penn. And all these have graciously agreed to serve. Okay, are there any nominations from the floor for any of these particular positions? Are there any nominations from the floor for any of these particular positions? Are there any nominations from the floor for any of these particular positions? I do that three times. Okay. Then we'll accept a motion from the floor to accept the slate as presented by the nominating committee by acclamation. Somebody other than us have to do that. Yeah, we can't do it. Well, anybody who's on the planning committee, Ms. Plumlee, you could do it if you wanted to. So moved. Okay. Get a second? Second. Okay, it's been propped and moved. Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Healy-Bell, that the slate of offices presented by the nominating committee will be elected by acclamation. Instruct the secretary to cast one vote, and that's it. Before we adjourn. I'm sorry, you've got to vote. We have to do something else. Okay. Well, just a minute. Let's vote on that. Okay, that takes care of that. What's the one? Well, we have to move that the secretary's duties. Oh, okay. Except for signing the minutes, will be delegated by the authority of the Director of the Division of Planning and Staff. Okay. Can we stake that as a motion? Yes. Okay. Can I get a second? Second. Okay. It's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Bell, that will delegation of secretary duties commissions pass procedure for carrying out the secretary's duties, except for signing minutes, has been delegated that authority to the Director of the Division of Planning and his staff. Is that good enough? I've got something. Okay, you want to comment on that? No. Okay. There's no discussion on that. All those in favor, just say aye. Aye. Ayes have it, and the motion carries. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn. I'd be remiss if I didn't say about our chairman that not only did he do a very good job of chairing us the last two years, but he did it in a very hard three years. I stand corrected. Three years. But to do it also the time you're doing a comp plan is the toughest time you can share. And I personally, and I think I speak to the rest of my planning commissioners, want to compliment Mr. Wilson on the job he's done for us. He's certainly been over backwards to give everybody an opportunity to speak. and to come through a comp plan, one is as detailed as this one is, and to come out of it, I'm not going to say unscathed, but your reputation in good standing. I want to compliment you from the rest of us for a job well done. Well, thank you very, very much. I'd like to thank you all, too, because all of you have mentored me and supported me and by extension have supported the city of Lexington. I'd also like to thank Mr. Duncan and the staff. You all have done a wonderful job of providing me education as we've gone through this, and even the silent partners in the back. We appreciate you when you were called upon. So my watch has ended. Mr. Chair, Mr. Wilson, if I may. Uh-oh. I just want to let you know that I do appreciate it, what you've done, and I will carry your torch as far as adequate parking as long as I'm around. Well, I have news for you, Mr. Now that I'm out of the chair's position, well, of course, vice chair is something else, but I thought about writing an op-ed piece. Now, it wouldn't be centered primarily on parking. It would be talking about the activities of this organization, and then at the last I would say something to the effect that the least that we could have is adequate parking. I've already talked with the mayor about this. Hey, thank you all again very, very much. It's been a pleasure. It's been a great journey, and I think we've got a good team coming up. And Mr. Anthony DeMovillen, now this has been a rather long session for you for the first day, but you've held up. Just bring your no-dos the next time, and you'll be in pretty good shape. Any other business to come before this body? If not, without, yes, sir, Mr. Duncan, I'm sorry. Thank you. One last time, Mr. Chair, and I, too, add Mr. Penske, gratitude for your dealings with the staff and for your interest in your work. coming in every Thursday meeting and meeting with us and getting oriented with the agenda to ensure that to help the meeting run smoothly. So the staff thanks you as well. And we're looking forward to working with the new chair again. It's good to have a familiar face and someone who knows us, so that will be a good experience, I believe. A couple of announcements to remind you all that next Thursday there is a Planning Commission work session that will be in the Phoenix Building on the third floor at 1.30. We have a couple of updates to give you on the ZODA project, the various ZODAs, and so we'll have that for you. And then also I want to tell you, if you'll bear with me, we've got several training opportunities, and you all will be getting an email from Pam Whitaker about these. But just to let you know, this Friday at 1 o'clock in our office there is an APA audio conference entitled Creating Safe Environments, Integrating Planning, Design, and Physical Security. And then a week from this Friday, on the 19th, there is a broadcast at 1 o'clock called Incorporating Arts in Urban and Site Design. Also on the 19th, in the morning at 7.30, the Urban Land Institute is hosting an accessory dwelling unit design and demand session at the Lexington Senior Center. That's at 7.30. There is a cost to that. However, the government can cover that for you if you will reach out to Pam and let her know of your interest in that. And then finally, on Wednesday, July 17th, there is another video conference, Pragmatic Guide to Zoning Reform. And this is for communities who are looking to update their zoning ordinance. And, of course, we are doing that through the ZODA process. So we'll be sending all of that to you as well. You'll have that information. I encourage you to participate in those as you'd like. One other final thought. Mr. Duncan is going to be speaking to the Lexington Rotary Club on July the 25th. This is a part of the outreach activities that we have as a part of the comprehensive plan. The Lexington Rotary Club is the 38th, I mean there are 38,000 Rotary Clubs in the world. It is the 25th largest club in the world, so you'll have a great audience there. I'll be there to cheer him on and to even introduce him. Yes, sir, Mr. Bell. Mr. Duncan, do you mind updating us on when the traffic crew came through a week or two ago or whatever, exactly the two days that they came through? Do you know what I'm referring to? We talked about in the work session they were going to do. Yeah. Yes, I'm happy. Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Yes, I'd be happy to give you all an update on that. Yes, we told you that our MPO, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is our regional federally funded transportation organization in the government, Jesmond County and Fayette County, and that's housed in the Division of Planning in our Transportation Planning section. The federal government, state government, was here doing a certification review a couple of weeks ago. That's something they do every four years, and our staff was preparing for that. And I am delighted to say that we received numerous commendations, including the best bike and pedestrian plan in the state. We were given commendation for our congestion management committee for having law enforcement membership on that, and for several other coordinating types of things that we did. And more importantly than the extra commendations was that we were given no corrective action. So essentially we weren't doing anything wrong anyway. And that report was made by Bernadette DuPont, who is Kentucky's representative of the Federal Highway Administration here. She made that report to the Transportation Policy Committee, which that day was being chaired by Mayor Gorton. So the mayor and several council members, plus Judge West in Jasmine County, all heard that report. Very proud of our staff and very proud of the work that they did to get through that process. and we appreciate the accolades and the recommendations from the reviewers. So thank you, Mr. Bill, for asking about that. Any other business to come before this body? If not, without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. Well.