We need a little singing, ringing through the rafter, and we need a little something, happy as a rafter, need a little Christmas now! Need a little Christmas now! You know Dasher and Dancer and Prancer and Vixen, Comet and Cupid and Donner and Blitzen, but do you recall the most famous reindeer of all? Old Off the Red Nose Reindeer had a very shiny nose, and if you ever saw it, you would even say it glows. All of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names. They would let poor Rudolph join in any reindeer games. And in one foggy Christmas Eve, Santa came to say, But if we're trying to do it on our own, or just upset at people or things like that, we might not be able to make as big a difference. Absolutely. And positive activity within a community, I find, pushes out the negative very well. Positive activity, so more youth programs, sports, people going out to parks, walks, things like that. So I think parks are an integral part of our district. We have a lot of parks here, and hopefully people will utilize them and make them safer by utilizing them. Absolutely. Is there anything else that you would like to tell people in the 11th District? Sure. I mean, I am quite impressed with the way this city operates. When I first started this position as a resource officer, I immediately got to networking with the many different resources that are available in this city. And I would just say, my opinion is I stand on the shoulders of giants in the position that I'm in. Because if it were not for the many people who saw the needs and developed these resources that are at my disposal now, my job would be very ineffective. And I'm very appreciative of the people who paved the way for me. Lexington is a wonderful city, and it's an honor to serve the city, isn't it? Yes, it is. Well, thank you for being here today. Thank you for serving our community and our district. And it's a pleasure to work with you. And if you all would like more information about how to contact Officer Jones, what would be a good way for people to contact you? My email is mjones at lexingtonpolice.ky.gov. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have through email. And if you need to contact me for whatever reason, you can contact me at jreynolds at lexingtonky.gov. Thank you so much for tuning in today for this Council Comment, and we will see you next time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And good-bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is December 12th, 2019. First on the agenda would be approval of minutes that we have from November 14th. I have heard of no changes. If anyone has any, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the minutes. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move approval of November 14 minutes, 2019. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Are there any postponements or withdrawals from today? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Baptist Healthcare. I'd like to request a one-month postponement to the January 16th meeting. On page four of your agenda, item F, MJDP 19-70, Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare. There are some things kind of behind the scenes that have to occur before this development plan can move forward. It's not really development plan related, but they do need to be in place before we can move forward. So hopefully that can be done in just one month. And that day is when? January 16th, I believe. 16th? I believe it's the third Thursday. I believe you are correct, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, we do have a motion amiss Monday for postponement until January 16th. That would be for plan MJDP 19-70. I'm doing all your work for you. Some is. And we do have a second by Ms. Plumlee. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Others? Yes, sir. Hello. I'm Steve Garland with Integrated Engineering. On page three, item E, the Ramsey Sullivan property, we're asking for a one-month postponement while we work out some final parking issues. Okay. Thank you, sir. That's, again, January 19th. What did we say? 16th. January 16th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for a postponement of PLN MJDP 19-69 Ramsey Sullivan property, lot four, for until January 16th. Thank you. The motion has been made by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Forrester, for a postponement of plan MJDP 19-69 Ramsey Sullivan property until January 16th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Mr. Carter, how do we honor a tie this afternoon? I was requested to wear this, said it might help my approval. Thank you, sir. If you turn in the agenda to page four, item G, major development plan 19-71 Rydell Plaza, lot three, Parker property, I'd like to ask for one month postponement. We still have a couple of issues that we need to get worked out before we move forward. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members, if not, Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Mr. Chair, move postponement until January 16th for PLN MJDP 19-0071 Rydell Plaza. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Plumlee for postponement until January 16th of PLN MJDP 19-71 Rydell Plaza. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. I might have said 19. It's January 16th. Motion passes. Apparently the tie worked. It worked. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Mr. Barrett. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Park. Where's your tie? I know I feel bad. That's why I'm asking for postponement. I'm afraid to move forward without my tie. Page two, development plan A, the PLN MJDP 19-62, the Lansdowne Shopping Center. We're continuing to work to resolve the access and parking area conflicts, and I'd like to ask for a one-month postponement. Again, it sounds like we may be busy on January 16th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 19-62 Lansdowne Shopping Center, amended to January 16th of 2020. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Plumlee for postponement, and thank you for that correction. It will be 2020. Plan MJDP 19-62 Lansdowne Shopping Center, that's January 16th, 2020. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. I would like to recognize and congratulate your own Bill Wilson for a recent election to Rotary's president-elect. So congratulations, Bill. Very good. Congratulations. I would say Tony and I ran against each other. Didn't have a tie on. I was all prepared to congratulate you, too. First of all, I thought Tony, you would have made a great president, and I don't know whether to be feeling good or feeling conflicted about this whole thing, but thank you very, very much. Very good. You'll do wonderful, and glad you're our next president-elect. Thank you. Thank you, both of you. We've got a political future, it sounds like. Any other requests for postponements, withdrawals? If not, Ms. Wade, do you want to take us through the consent agenda? Absolutely, Chairman Owens. We do have several items today that do qualify for our consent agenda, actually three, two development plans as well as a minor development plan that the Planning Commission discussed briefly last month. So we'll run through those, and then if there's anyone that wants any of those items removed from the consent agenda, we can amend as we move forward. So the first item appears on page 2, and it's item A on your regular agenda, PLN-MJDP-19-62. Oh, I'm sorry, that was the one Tony just postponed. So the first item can be removed. The second item is page 3, item A, PLN-MJDP-19-68, the Peninsula and Squires Apartments, and this is an amended final development plan for property located at 440 Squires Road. And I think that's it for that one. The second one is a minor development plan that was referred to the Planning Commission. It appears on page 5 and item A on your agenda today, PLN-MNDP-19-20 for Fayette Commons, and this is for a Moe's and Burger-Fi location. It's also an amended final development plan for property located at 135 Roe J. Drive. If there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have any of these items pulled from the consent agenda, this is the time to indicate that, or if the Planning Commission wants to hear either of these two items. Seeing none, the Commission can take both items in one motion. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Seeing no one that wants to hear either one of these remaining two, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Patrick. Yeah, I was just going to move for acceptance of the consent agenda. Thank you. And do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Wilson for the consent agenda. As read, the two items. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. We will take the remaining items in the order that they do show on the agenda, which first item would be at the bottom of page 1, Preliminary Subdivision Plan. It's Plan MJ SUV 19-11, James Malcolm, located on 2020 Russell Cave Road. You do have a revision before you that I think is on an orange sheet of paper, as well as an EAMP report and a waiver that we will discuss. Yes, ma'am. I don't want to get too far. I just want to enter in the record the sign affidavit for the property. The applicant provided that before the start of the meeting, and it looks to be in order. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Galt. Good afternoon. As we said, we're looking at a piece of property located at 2020 Russell Cave Road. This is Russell Cave Road. This is I-75-64. We're looking at this portion, this piece of property right here. You all just reviewed this and had a zone change, and it was approved by council. They're coming in with a Final Development Plan and a Preliminary Subdivision Plan to show. I want to go. There we go. Sorry about that. We're going to show. This is Eden Court, which is already an existing neighborhood, and they're proposing to bring in a street stubbed off here and have two, I guess if you want to call it legs of the street, along with two stubs into adjacent property. And so with that, with the revisions, you can see they only have typical sign-offs. Just one little thing that we need to clarify, the street frontage along Russell Cave Road. As you said, we have the EAMP report and a waiver for the land subregs for a sidewalk. The geometrics on the street. I can't say that word. And so Tom is going to present that to you. So if there's any other questions on the Development Plan, Preliminary Subdivision Plan. Any questions for Ms. Gault on the Preliminary Subdivision Plan? Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I will address the waiver for you today. First, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the subdivision regs cross-section, specifically as it pertains to sidewalks. Now, the EAMP and the subregs encourage waivers in terms of innovation and creativity in the expansion area. That's not entirely the reason they're requesting this waiver today. But here we have Eden Court as it extends into the property. And again, you can see the local street that's being proposed to connect into this property to the north, as well as this small track to the north as well. And here we have a cul-de-sac as we go west towards Russell Cave Road. There are proposing sidewalks along this local street with the exception of this stretch right through here on Road A as it goes to the west. The primary reason for this is the tree protection area and the conditional zoning that was imposed on this property to buffer this property here to the adjoining residential property. So there won't be any development in this area whatsoever. No homes, just be an HOA area. So they're requesting a waiver of the subdivision regs just along this. It's about 300 feet of street frontage in that location. There will be sidewalks, as you can see elsewhere, throughout the proposed development. We are recommending that they extend the sidewalk from Eden Court into the subdivision, the new development, not only on this side, but just this little piece right here as well, just to get people up to that point. Obviously, they'll have to cross the street in one direction or the other when they get to that point. But we have reviewed that. We've discussed it with Traffic Engineering as well as the Division of Engineering. We are recommending approval of the waiver subject to that condition of that small little section of sidewalk. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on the waiver. Any questions for Mr. Martin on the waiver? All right, thank you. So let me just clarify. I'm sorry, I was looking. So the addition of that small stretch of sidewalk is covered under the waiver as one of the requirements? It is on the last page. You will find – Okay, approximately 25 feet? Yes, sir. All right, thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. I will move on now to your EMP compliance report. And as you all are well aware, this is a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan. This is a common practice in the AMP. They're generally combined. Now, as a single family development, which as you know this is, it will move forward more like a preliminary subdivision plan with final record plats, just recorded. So in that sense, it's not a typical final development plan for a commercial area, multifamily, that I know that you are used to seeing. But it is, as I said, a combined plan, which is standard in the AMP. Now, this is a single family development on 8.9 acres. It is EAR2. They're providing approximately 5.9 units per acre. That falls within the three to six density that's required in the AMP with their layout that you can see here. So in that regard, they do comply with the future land use element of the AMP. Now, the next major element of the AMP is the community design element. And that addresses a lot of various issues in a plan. It can address connectivity. It can address pedestrian facilities. It addresses generally lot sizes, development setbacks, those sorts of things. The AMP encourages well-defined neighborhoods. But as you all have heard me say many times, it also encourages connections and integration of these neighborhoods. Now, this one, as you all are well aware, is relatively unique in that here it is sitting here on this little piece of property. This is – oops, didn't mean to do that. Did it again. How did I do it? Here we go. There we go. So we are – here's the Joyland neighborhood. Old, well-established neighborhood. Been out there, as you all are aware, since the 50s and the 60s when it was developed. So this is very, very new relative to the existing development. This area to the north is part of the AMP. It is recommended for low-density housing as well. It may or may not develop any time in the future. Of course, we don't know when that may happen. They are, however, providing a local street connection. It will eventually intersect with Parkway, which also serves this development and will be part of the local street system that is required by the AMP, as will this stub as well. A development like this is relatively simple in terms of its design elements because it's single-family. Now, one thing they have not done that is required in the AMP is they need to put those design standards on their plan, and they'll be carried forward on the final record plan. And they deal with things like the setback. The minimum is five, and they could do more. They could do down to five. They can vary that. The lot sizes, they're also required to address those requirements for garages. You all know garages have to sit back from the front of a unit. There's driveway. These are just community design elements that need to be on these plans, and, again, they're carried forward to the final record plan. That's the only item, really, at this time that's missing from this plan. And in conjunction with the community design element, they are attempting to take advantage of the topography. Now, this property breaks in two different directions. You can see stormwater detention proposed here and here. But it is compatible, as a single-family development, with the adjoining properties and should be compatible with what happens here to the north as well. There are no significant environmental conditions on this property, with one exception that was identified in 1996 of a significant tree stand. So there was a significant tree stand on the property. That's separate from significant trees. A significant tree can be in a tree stand, but a tree stand isn't necessarily a bunch of significant trees. It literally was identified as a stand, as a grouping of trees that had been on the property for a considerable amount of time. Part of the conditional zoning and a lot of the area here that will be protected will help preserve the tree stand. They've identified significant trees. You can see in these locations. They're going to be able to save approximately six of these. These are large. These are significant trees under our ordinance. Now, obviously, where this road is going through, we're going to lose a couple. They're going to have to put some real effort into a couple of other locations in an attempt to save those trees. And that's part of where development standards come into play. They can adjust these, and they can work to try to save those particular trees. There's no scenic resource area. There's no greenways identified in this area on the EAMP. On this property, things are identified further to the north. Now, the infrastructure element. There are no significant EAMP infrastructure requirements on this property. The Providence Boulevard, which is across Russell Cave Road on the Kingston Providence, that is an identified collector street that runs from Russell Cave to Newtown Pike. It's about 50% complete. I think, as you all are aware, it will eventually extend to Russell Cave Road. It's not designed to extend onto this property or even the property to the north. The other significant EAMP infrastructure element is the sewer trunk line as well as the large pump station that is under construction, again, adjacent to the Providence Parkway property, Providence development and the Kingston development, as is also known. Again, all to the west. The trunk line, these things are under construction. They're going in the ground. Now, this property will have to access sanitary sewer both through existing lines, and they have easements that are available to them, and they will also have to achieve some off-site easements in order to sewer these properties, and they will utilize that new trunk line. They will utilize that new pump station eventually when it is complete. But again, in terms of EAMP, they don't have to construct any of those elements, and those are exactable elements. They will be utilizing them. So in that sense, they're compliant with the infrastructure requirements of the EAMP as well. Timing will be obviously something they'll have to deal with in terms of the construction completion of the sanitary sewer. So with that, staff has reviewed their plan, reviewed the EAMP, and we are recommending that the Planning Commission make findings that this plan does comply substantially with the EAMP. We have added a recommendation that they denote those community design elements that are required under the EAMP on this plan prior to its certification. And with that, we believe they will be in substantial compliance with your EAMP. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Questions for Mr. Martin on the compliance report? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. Applicant, anything to add? Good afternoon, Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be in front of you as always. I'm going to keep my comments brief, which I'm sure you will like to hear. My name is Zach Cato. I'm an attorney at Billings Law Firm here in Lexington. I represent the applicant. Mr. Ryan Foster is here on behalf of the applicant today. We agree with the staff's revised conditions, including the modified waiver request to include that 25-foot sidewalk extension. We agree with all that. One clarification is we have included – they're kind of cut off by this. We have written the design standards up here and included it on the plan. So those are set. But if we need to show those visually or add more detail, we're happy to do that. We view that as sort of a cleanup item, I guess. But we have no issue with those conditions. So if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. Questions for Mr. Cato? Yes, Mr. Penn. To sewer that, you're going to the new trunk line, I assume. It's been put across there, Russ K. Pike and on through to Joel. Are you going to be able to get deep enough to take that on a gravity feed or are you going to have to pump that over that hill? I'm going to turn that question over to the engineer who knows more about that than I do. Mr. William Horton can speak to that. I hope he knows more about it than I do. Good evening. I'm William Horton with Thoroughbred Engineering. To answer your question, we have been looking at the sanitary sewer as it stands right now, the existing conditions. We are going to be a little bit lower right now based on the existing grades to make a connection into that existing sanitary sewer line. However, we are looking at the option of raising the grades on site to be able to make that connection point, not have to use any kind of a pumping system or grinder pumps. That's not 100% sure at this point, but we are going to try to avoid that at all costs. You'll be able to get easements to that? We should be able to get easements. I'm showing an easement on there right now for the backside of the property to be utilized for sanitary sewer in the future. Thank you. Other questions? Thank you, sir. Anything else for Mr. Cato? No. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak? Mr. Murphy? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing Dr. John Cummins, who is the owner of the property to the north right up here. No, he doesn't own this piece, but he owns the big farm to the north there. I'm here just to state on the record that he is experiencing flooding problems right now from a new city stormwater project in the existing neighborhood, and due to those, we're very concerned about that and just want to go on the record and trust that the stormwater calculations will be done carefully for this property and will be reviewed carefully so that this does not exacerbate the flooding situation on his property. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak on this plan? If not, staff, do you have anything else to add? No. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Please give us a name and address. My name is Patty Drouse. I live at 608 Allen Court in Lexington. I'm in the Joyland neighborhood, and I only want to raise one objection to this development. I ask that you please stand up for Eden Court. I feel like their issue is not really resolved here, and that is the fact that 53 dwellings on this property with two cars per dwelling equals 106 cars, and each one of those cars goes in and out once a day. That's 212 trips per day on tiny little Eden Court, which could be a safety hazard as well as really a change in quality of life for these people and an irritant. I understand that Russell Cave Road is a state road, and we can't just connect out there because it's close to the interstate. But, you know, we've got Jim Gray in charge of the Department of Transportation now, and could we not speak to him about a traffic signal that would have a sensor and only turn colors when a car came out of the development and opened out onto Russell Cave Road? It could be 20 or 30 years until the properties to the north are developed, and in that period of time, all this traffic would be coming out onto Eden Court. And so even if a street where a temporary connection out to Russell Cave was a temporary thing with a temporary light, some way to resolve this traffic situation for little Eden Court, and I ask you to stand up for them. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. S. Staff have any comments in addition to reply to? I would just say that Traffic Engineering requested that the applicant try to work with Mr. Cummins or Dr. Cummins to extend the road to Parkside so there would be an alternative exit. And, again, even that very small piece of property wasn't, there wasn't an agreement to make it available for that connection at this time. That's, I'll add, that's what I've heard. It's been discussed, and at the present time, it's not in the immediate future. I'll put it that way. As far as Russell Cave Road, I think sight distances is just a significant issue. Yes, a significant issue to try and make something like that work. It has been discussed, and I can say as far as what Ms. Dress was referring to, you know, presently the only entrance to this development right now is Eden Court. That was something that was much discussed. Primarily it was coming from me at that time on the initial application on this. Hopefully, you know, future-wise, you never know what might happen. Mr. S., hopefully, you know, a connection can be made, and Eden Court won't be impacted quite as much as what it may be in the immediate future. Anyone else? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion amongst commission members and or a motion. I think motions definitely would need two, one on the preliminary subdivision plan first noting the compliance, and then also a second motion for the waiver, if that is your all's wishes. Would you entertain a motion? Any discussion? Yes, sir. Discussion? Yes. I'm old enough to have farmed that piece of property, and we own the farm across the road, and it's a very unique piece of property. It's the only piece of property I know of where a spring comes out right on top of a hill. But the other thing about it is that we are in a situation here where we've zoned a piece of property, and until the adjoining piece of property comes in, we're doing the best we can with what we have to work with here. It's not a good situation. It's not an ideal situation, but it is the only situation we'd be able to see that gives the people that own this piece of property a right to develop it. Russell Cave Road is just not an option. It's just not. It doesn't matter who's head of the transportation department. It's a public safety issue. If the sewer thing can be done and the stormwater thing can be handled, there's no reason this piece of property can't be developed. Hopefully the relief will come when that Cummins property becomes available and they can do something out on Russell Cave closer to Faulkner than they can at this point. So I don't see how we can do anything but approve this, knowing what the challenges are and knowing that the relief will come down the road whenever Mr. Cummins decides to bring his property in. Do you want a motion? If you're ready. Are we ready? Any other comments, discussion? I think not. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN-MJSUB-1911 for the revised staff report with the 12 conditions as presented, noting the EAMP compliance report. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded. Mr. Forrester, did you chime in there? For approval of PLN-MJSUB-1911, James Malcolm, Track 2, portion of Track 1 with the noted 12 conditions. If there's no discussion on the motion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Now for the waiver. That is before you in the white sheet. Right. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the waiver be granted for the development. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the waiver in connection with the PLN-MJSUB-1911, James R.B. Malcolm, for the reasons provided by staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion also passes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Next on the agenda would be at the bottom of page 2, it's PLN-MJDP-1966, Masterson Station. Could I get some assistance with my computer from somebody? Thank you. And we do have a revision that's on a blue sheet of paper before you. And a waiver. Thank you. So this is MJDP-19-66, Masterson Station Center, also called Citation Village. This is located at 248 Ferndale Pass and 2679 Leestown Road. So we've got Ferndale Pass towards the top. Robinson Way comes down here and then Leestown is down this way. And Citation Boulevard is right here. The purpose of this plan amendment is to revise the townhouse development, add street cross section ZZ, and update the notes. There have been questions on this plan about the pedestrian access along the road frontage. However, the applicant and the builder met with staff on November 15th to discuss design concerns and potential resolutions. And on December 2nd, we did receive a revised plan. The staff can now offer the Planning Commission a revised recommendation, and we are recommending approval. We have our typical sign-offs on this plan. In addition, a couple of cleanup conditions. Number 13, we just need the Citation Boulevard corrected on the vicinity map. It refers to it as a future road. Number 14, we just need open space provided, and that can just be added to the site statistics. And then number 15, we just need the tree canopy put on the face of the plan and the canopy coverage also provided. The last four items we feel can be resolved at this time based on the revised plan and discussions that staff has had with the applicant. Those items can now be resolved to the satisfaction of staff. Mr. Martin is going to present the findings for the waiver request for the access easement. If you all have any questions for me at this time, I can take those. Questions for Lauren? Nope. Not yet. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the waiver and finding that is associated with this particular plan is one that you see quite often with a townhouse development. And again, with primary access off of Ferndale Pass and this location into the development, they are rear-loaded. These townhouses are rear-loaded. So this is an access easement in this section of the development to serve the townhouses. Now, the waiver in and of itself, along with the finding, is for the frontage requirements when the access easement provides access to a piece of property. And it's these units in this location that are the subject of that particular waiver of the frontage. These units actually front on public streets, so they meet the definition and meet the requirement of the subdivision regulations. The access easement finding that is associated with the waiver is required under your subdivision regulations where, in effect, you are saying as a body that the access easement will serve to provide this access in lieu of a public or a private street. And again, this is very common in our townhouse developments. Now, as you are aware, one concern that has grown over the years has been how these easements are constructed. Because if they're poorly constructed, then they don't last, they wear out, you have problems, and then the homeowners association is faced with a lot of expense and cost in maintaining them. And if they should ever request urban county government to accept it as a public street, they have to upgrade it to public standards. So that's a concern that's grown over the years on these access easements. With that, we have a condition of approval that states that it shall be built to the approval of traffic engineering as well as the division of engineering. And our biggest concern in this situation, I will add, generally is the depth of the subgrade and the pavement because that's what wears out quickest. There are other times, and you're going to hear about this today on the next plan, there are concerns about stormwater collection and curb and gutter to help the stormwater control. It's not a particular issue on this particular plan. So, again, having said that, this is your access easement serving as the frontage and sole access to these units. Staff is recommending approval of the waiver. We also are recommending approval of the binding on the access easement. The access easement is further, not just a matter of design, but there is another recommendation, and Lauren touched on this. Much of the staff's concern originally on this plan were the pedestrian system that is being proposed, access to that system, access to the public right-of-way system as well, and to the multi-use trail that is in the area. It's important to have that pedestrian access. So they do have access coming in to the development. They have now provided access to the right-of-way at staff's request. But one condition is to further develop the interior pedestrian system to provide good access within the development and out to the public right-of-way as well. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have about the waiver and the finding. Questions for Mr. Martin? Tom, I've waited until I heard this part of it. I don't know if this would be for you or Lauren as far as the DP. She mentioned that these four last conditions on the development plan, if I heard her right, could be resolvable. They are, yes, sir. Shouldn't we leave them as resolved then? Well, actually, we believe this plan, along with your ordinance, will resolve those. This plan does show access as we were concerned through the public right-of-way with the orientation of the units. They proposed a wall or a fence in what was the front yard. Your ordinance limits them to four feet. They can build one. They're limited to four feet. That will be dealt with at the permit stage. The landscape issue was not, as you're aware, this is a creek with a lot of natural vegetation. It's a very nice little amenity in this area, and there's buffering there. They have plenty of room to provide and meet Article 18, which is their responsibility. The initial concern was buffering the residential from this commercial area. But, again, they have ample room and options on how to meet Article 18, and we think that will be adequate at this time. I will say that when they amend this commercial area again, and we believe they will, we will address the issue of any commercial relationship to this area at that time as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, applicant. Mr. Cayley, you did not run out and get a tie after what got started with all this? I had one last month. Okay. Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with staff's revised conditions on the blue page. Request your approval, and I'll try to answer any questions. Questions for Mr. Cayley? Mr. Cayley, I've got one. Much as to what we were just discussing, curious as to, Mr. Martin said a four-foot fence as far as the front yard. Can you give us any details as to what type of fence this may be? I think we're looking at standard picket-style fence, something that's going to go around the perimeter of these buildings and give them a sense of enclosure and community. Something better than a chain-link fence? Yes. Okay. All right. Any other questions? No. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, staff, anything else to add? No. Okay. Thank you. There's no further questions. I'll close this part of the hearing for public discussion, open it up for any discussion, comments, and or motion from the commission. Seeing not much movement. Motion? Anyone like to try? Okay. Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Bundy. Mr. Chair, at this time I'd like to move for approval of PLN-MJDP-19-66, Masterson Station Center, with the 15 conditions as noted by staff, including with that the findings. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion and it was seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval of PLN-MJDP-19-66, Masterson Station Center, with the revised 15 conditions. No further discussion. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then we do have the waiver associated with that. Ms. Bundy? Yes. And I move for approval of the waiver as presented by staff for PLN-MJDP-19-66. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval of the findings for the waiver associated with PLN-MJDP-19-66. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes also. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. We can move on. Oh, yeah, Newtown. Thank you. It's on Page 3, PLN-MJDP-19-67, Newtown Springs. We do also have a waiver on this one. Ms. Hedge? Thank you. This is MJDP-19-67, Newtown Springs. It's located at 564 Asbury Lane. Oh, gosh. So here's the main entrance. And then Silver Springs Drive comes down this way, and we're kind of in this area. This amendment is revising the previous development layout that was multifamily and is now going to be townhouses. I believe it's 109 townhouses and adding eight single-family residential lots. Those residential lots are in the yellow, and then all of our townhouses are through here. We have most of our typical sign-offs on this plan. Additionally, number 11 is correcting the sidewalk width on the street cross-sections for CC and FF. That just needs to be current with the five-foot sidewalk regulation that got passed. And then we also have a waiver and a finding that needs to be granted by the Planning Commission regarding lot frontage and access and also the use of access easement. So it's actually the exact same waiver and finding from the previous plan that we looked at. And then our last two discussion items are about the dumpster locations and the internal pedestrian system. All the dumpster locations have been added to the plan. It's just they're throughout the plan. And then the internal pedestrian system also is much clearer now, and it looks like each property has access to that system. So we think those two items can be resolved. And Mr. Martin will also present the waiver and finding for this plan. And I can take any questions. Yes. Lauren, let me ask once again, as far as the two discuss items. Yes. Are we changing those to resolve or have they already been added? We're leaving them on the. But they can be resolved? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Lauren? Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, as promised, you've got a waiver and a finding associated with a townhouse development similar to the previous one. And in this particular situation, as you can see, you've got public street system. This is constructed for the most part through here. You've got a future street connection, public right of way here. This is a long rectangular piece of property with obviously you can see an odd offset in it and a little bit of odd geometry. So it's constricted in that regard by the previous development with the neighborhoods in this area. You've got citation on up here, of course. But the public street system in this location, all these have somewhat restricted the property. So in order to try to develop it as townhouses and to maintain some density and at the same time subdivide these as fee simple, that's the challenge that the developer faces. Again, they can utilize the public right of way. But interior development here and here is contingent, and you can see an easement here as well. It's contingent upon the use of access easements once again. And that's actually very standard, as you know, with townhouse developments. So we have a waiver once again addressing the frontage issue for those units that do not front on these public right of way in these locations. So these interior units are required to have frontage on either right of way or, in this case, they're requesting permission to use an access easement. So, again, we have a finding on the access easement as well. Now, as I mentioned before, the issue here, this is a very, very developed and complex system. It's tied in together. And it is going to have to play a role to a certain degree with helping to collect stormwater, and that stormwater goes off site to detention. So that creates the other development you saw can utilize sheet flow and that sort of thing to the creek and some other elements that are available to them that are not available to this particular development. So with that, staff has reviewed this. And, again, in working with our coworkers in engineering and traffic, we are recommending approval of the waiver and the finding, again, with conditions that the easements be built to the standards required by traffic and by the Division of Engineering, as well as providing a pedestrian system, an internal pedestrian system as well, to serve all these units. Again, kind of tie it all together and bring people out to the existing right of way and to the sidewalks there, which will, of course, lead them to future development, existing development, and potential park in this location and that sort of thing. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the waiver as well as a finding on the access easements. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, Mr. Powell? Who maintains the elaborate pedestrian walkways? It will be HOA. These will be sold fee simple, but there will be an HOA that will have to maintain the access easements and associated pedestrian sidewalks and that sort of thing. And what is the intent of those walkways? To provide pedestrian access throughout the development and then to tie them into the public right of way sidewalk system as well. So there are no sidewalks along the access roadways? We're asking that that be fully developed and resolved, that pedestrian system, the interior system. Oh, well, that's a possibility. I'm not sure that that's been fully determined. It could vary. Again, the important aspect is a pedestrian system. I think in this particular case, Graham, we're more concerned with curb and gutter associated with the access easements to help with the stormwater. And then we're just looking for a good pedestrian system within the development. I guess I'm failing to understand how that's a good pedestrian system. It seems to be a maze leading nowhere. Well, and I think, again, we need to resolve that with them and get that ultimate design to the approval of traffic as well as planning. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Martin, this is a final development plan? Yes, sir, and a preliminary subdivision plan. They will be subdividing these townhouses and selling them fee simple. Other questions? Yes, Mr. Penn. So before they can sell any lots, this sidewalk system has to be taken care of? Yes, sir. Everything should be built, and they'll then file record plats and record those plats. However, they can build off this plan. Right. But then they should be selling them off of the record plats. Okay. Thanks. Other questions? If not, thank you, sir. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy representing Palumbo Properties. Bill McAlpin and John Hill, our engineers from Eagle Engineering, are here. They're not wearing ties, so I've been nominated to speak on their behalf today. But we do agree with the staff conditions. The latest submission did show the pedestrian system and the dumpsters. We understand those have to be reviewed by the appropriate divisions before they'll get signed off on. As Mr. Martin mentioned, this is a final development plan preliminary subdivision plat, which means we can start building, but we cannot sell any lots until the final subdivision plat is recorded. And as you know, at that time, all the public improvements have to be either constructed or bonded at that point, most likely constructed. So, as I said, we do agree with the staff recommendation and ask for your approval. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, considering a couple of former questions, can you elaborate any on the internal pedestrian system? You can see we've added the sidewalk system outside of the front doors of the townhomes. These are back-loaded townhomes. So we have our two-car garages for each unit using an alley system, and the front will face on the green space, and we have the sidewalks going through there. We'd need to discuss it with the appropriate officials and traffic engineering and planning as to whether this meets their requirements or not. I mean, sometimes you get into conditions where you may not want a sidewalk if it is continually crossing driveways. Every unit here, I think you can see, has a sidewalk at the front door, which is a system devoted to pedestrians without the interference of cars on it. And we will certainly talk with traffic engineering and planning about and seek their approval of this. I'm not sure they've had time to totally look this over, which they will before they sign off on that. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. Does traffic have any comment right now? Steven Barker with traffic engineering. Anytime you increase the density in a site like this, it leads to some challenges, but I'm confident that we can work with the engineer in resolving that and come up with a solution. Trying to avoid conflicts between the cars and the pedestrians will be a challenge on this site just because of the layout, but I'm confident that we can achieve our goal with the engineer. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Barker. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, staff, have anything else to add? Nothing? I'll close this part here and open it up for any discussion among the commission members and or a motion, recognizing that we would have two motions before us on the development plan and then also the waiver. Question. I have a question, and I'm not sure which one of the staff this is for, so I'm going to throw it out there. This is a fee simple development, very congested development, but I don't see any amenities. Is there a reason there are no amenities? Is it because it's fee simple? Is it, you know, I'm not seeing, and this bothered me, and I should have brought it up probably a week ago, but there are no amenities. It's very congested. You've got a lot of people there. You've got a sidewalk system that meanders through and works, apparently, but there are no amenities for these folks. And so I guess I thought about it last week, and it's really bothered me all since last week. Our ordinances and regulations don't require amenities per se. It's really up to the developer and their vision. So they would be the best people to answer your question. You may recall the apartments had amenities. Yeah, had a clubhouse, perhaps even a pool and that sort of thing. But they'll have to explain their vision to you. Well, we had a meeting with the staff where Mr. Palumbo explained his vision for this, but this is modeled upon a very similar townhome community one or two blocks away. It's on, well, one of the roads right nearby on Newtown Springs Drive, excuse me. And those also do not have amenities, but they've been extremely popular and sold out very quickly. They're three-bedroom townhome units. And I want to point out up here right there is where the townhome community has been very popular and sold out. And so they see the need, the demand for this. I would point out, too, we did have amenities for the apartments, but at the same time we're reducing density by about a half. I know this may not look like it's a reduction in units because of the coverage, but we're going from 252 units down to 109 units. Now, the 252 were two bedrooms. That's about 500 four-bedroom units to 109 townhome units. If they're all, a few of them will be four-bedroom, mostly three. We're going down to 300-some units. So we're actually doing a reduction in density on here. So through the experience right nearby in the neighborhood, they did not feel that the amenities were that much of a desired feature for the people who are wishing to buy in this neighborhood. We do have commercial right here in walking distance. Don't have to go out to Newtown Pike or Citation to get to the commercial area, too, as well. Okay, so other questions? Since we went back to Mr. Murphy, staff have anything to add? No. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussions? If not, I'll go back to the motion phase and see if anyone's interested in a motion. Yes, sir? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval for PLN-MJDP-19-67 Newtown Springs with the 15 items identified by staff changing number 14 and 15 related to dumpster locations and internal pedestrian system, respectively, to resolve as opposed to discuss. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Bruce Nickel for approval of PLN-MJDP-19-67 Newtown Springs with the 15 conditions changing 14 and 15 from discuss to resolve. Any discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And now for the waiver, Mr. Wilson. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval for PLN-MJDP-19-67. This is for the waiver along with the findings for use of access easement. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. Mr. Nickel? Yes? Seconded by Mr. Nickel for approval of findings for the waiver associated with PLN-MJDP-19-67 for the reasons provided by staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all. We move on to page 5. We do have a couple of items there. I did just look and we do have a performance bonds letter of credit that is on Granicus. It's dated December the 12th for the release of call of bonds. We do need a motion on that. Anyone interested in looking can pull it up on your Granicus. Yes, I need a motion. Mr. Penn? I move for release of call of bonds. Motion's been made and seconded. Anything to add? No? You're good. Seconded by Mr. Forrester for the release and call of bonds dated December the 12th, 2019. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. It's up. Motion passes. We do have a commission item. Please take note. It's very important. We're looking at canceling the December 19th meeting for 2019. We do need a motion on that. If you all are interested in not coming on December 19th. I'd like to make that motion. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Forrester, you were saying? Yeah, I just want to make a motion that we cancel the meeting for December 19th, 2019. Thank you. Motion was made by Mr. Forrester and seconded by Mr. Pohl for the cancellation and amendment to the 2019 meeting and the following schedule for the cancellation of December 19th. Ms. Plumlee, did you have anything to add? No, I was just going to. Okay. Very good. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. She didn't like that. Well, we do have those naysayers. And look who it is. Staff items. We have one improvement plan, I believe. No, we do not. Okay. I'm sorry. Staff, do you have anything else to add? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to remind you all that you don't meet again for almost a month. So your next meeting will be committee day on Thursday, January the 9th, 830, starting at 830 in our offices. And I also want to remind you as we close out the year here that it's been quite a year for the planning commission. You all adopted the 2018 comprehensive plan in February of this year and set about implementing that plan with PlaceBuilder, and we've had a number of developments come through with that. And we're moving right along with beginning the Strategic Growth Task Force and began their meetings yesterday in response to one of the goals that we come up with a new way of looking at how we evaluate the future growth of the urban service area. So that process has kicked off now. So it has been quite a year, and you all have done an enormous amount of work. And the staff expresses our gratitude for all that you have done, and we hope that you have a terrific holiday season. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Does that include, Mr. Duncan, a parking place? Cole, Mr. Wilson. Glad Mr. Wilson brought that up. At least he's getting inside the building. Two things. One, if you didn't notice when we were making postponements earlier, Mr. Duncan alluded to it a moment ago, we do start our meetings in January on the 9th. It's kind of a little oddity that we're pushing everything back from the first Thursday to the second Thursday, which means even though we do have five Thursdays in January, the last one will be our zoning hearing for the month. So with that, I would like to welcome Tracy Jones back after a brief respite. I shouldn't say respite. She did have back surgery. I hope things are going well. Good? Okay. Very good. I'd like to echo the sentiments of a very happy holiday for everyone and look forward to seeing you all next year. Without any other discussion, I'll declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you.