# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - March 12, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 12, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4969 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4969?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-03-12 - **Last revised**: March 12, 2020 - **Length**: 27,776 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution 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 March 12, 2020, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Owens presiding. The commission addressed 13 agenda items during the session, taking a total of 15 votes on various development proposals and administrative matters throughout the meeting. The commission approved several significant items including the meeting minutes, a consent agenda, and multiple development projects such as Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lots 1 and 7, Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus, Schroyer Property Lots 3 & 4, Fayette Commons, and the George Mankel Property. However, four items were postponed: Blackford Property Phase 4, Dotson Farm Subdivision, Riddell Plaza, and Highlawn Extension Lot 28. The Winburn Estates item was tabled for future consideration. One member of the public provided comments during the meeting's public comment period. The session demonstrated the commission's ongoing work in reviewing and approving various residential, commercial, and institutional development projects across Lexington-Fayette County. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 12, 2020: **Present:** • Frank Penn • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Headley Bell • Jeff Neal • Vaughan Adkins • Traci Wade • Tom Martin • Hal Baillie • Cheryl Gallt • Lauren Hedge • Samantha Castro • Valerie Friedmann • Scott Thompson • Parker Sherwood • Captain Greg Lengal • Chad Edwards All expected attendees were present for the meeting. No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting began with approval of minutes from January 30 and February 13 as corrected, motioned by Mr. Chair and passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. Several items were postponed due to various circumstances: • **PLN-MJDP-19-74** (Blackford Property Phase 4) was postponed until April 9, 2020, with Miss Plumlee providing the second [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MJSUB-20-00001** (Dotson Farm Subdivision) was postponed for one month [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MJDP-19-71** (Riddell Plaza) was postponed until April 9, 2020, with Mr. Pohl seconding [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-FRP-20-11** (Highlawn Extension Lot 28) was postponed for one month, with Miss Plumlee seconding [timestamp: 00:00] The Consent Agenda was approved by voice vote on motion by Mr. Chair [timestamp: 00:00]. Multiple development projects received approval: • **PLN-FRP-20-9** (Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 7) was approved by Mr. Penn's motion with 13 staff conditions, along with a related waiver seconded by Mr. Bell [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-FRP-20-10** (Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 1) was approved by Mr. Chair and seconded by Mr. Wilson with 11 staff conditions, including an associated waiver [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MJDP-19-70** (Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus) was approved by Mr. Chair and seconded by Mr. Pohl, with signalization required at construction time [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MJDP-19-73** (Schroyer Property Lots 3 & 4) was approved by Mr. Chair and seconded by Mr. Forester, with the condition to remove drive-thru language from plans [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MJDP-20-4** (Fayette Commons) was approved on motion by Ms. Mundi and seconded by Mr. Bell with 12 staff conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **PLN-MJDP-20-8** (George Mankel Property) was approved by Mr. Bell and seconded by Ms. Mundi with 11 noted conditions [timestamp: 00:00] **PLN-MJDP-19-77** (Winburn Estates) was continued until April 9, 2020, on motion by Mr. Chair and seconded by Graham Pohl [timestamp: 00:00]. All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded opposition. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 00:00] Doug Martin addressed the meeting to voice his objection to the proposed Schroyer Property development. Martin raised multiple concerns about the impact the development would have on adjacent properties, specifically citing issues with increased noise, odor, traffic, dust, and light pollution that would affect neighboring areas. Martin's comments focused particularly on the proposed drive-thru component of the development, which he argued would create additional disturbances for nearby residents and property owners. Beyond the immediate quality-of-life concerns, Martin also highlighted technical issues with the development proposal, including questions about the site's stormwater management capabilities and concerns about traffic flow patterns that the development would create. The objections presented by Martin covered both environmental and infrastructure considerations, suggesting that the proposed development had not adequately addressed the potential negative impacts on the surrounding community. His comments indicated that local residents had significant reservations about how the Schroyer Property development would integrate with the existing neighborhood and whether proper mitigation measures had been planned for the various concerns he outlined. ## Contested Items Two development projects generated significant debate during the March 12, 2020 meeting, drawing opposition from community members and prompting extended discussion among officials. **Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus** The Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus development became the subject of heated discussion, with disagreements centered on proposed access points and traffic signal arrangements. The contentious nature of the debate suggests fundamental concerns about how the healthcare facility would integrate with existing transportation infrastructure. However, the specific details of the opposition arguments, the parties involved in the dispute, and the ultimate resolution of these traffic-related issues were not captured in the available meeting data. **Winburn Estates Development** The Winburn Estates development plan encountered community opposition, with critics raising concerns about two primary issues: connectivity and design standards. The opposition indicates that residents or stakeholders questioned how the proposed development would connect to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure, as well as whether the project met appropriate design criteria for the area. The nature of the community opposition suggests local residents were actively engaged in voicing their concerns about the project's potential impact on their neighborhood. Both contested items reflect common themes in local development disputes, where infrastructure concerns and community integration become focal points for debate. The Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus controversy centered on technical traffic management issues, while the Winburn Estates opposition appeared to involve broader community planning concerns about connectivity and aesthetic standards. The available meeting data does not include specific details about the resolution of either contested item, the names of individuals who spoke for or against the projects, or the final votes taken by the governing body. Without access to meeting timestamps or more detailed transcripts, the specific arguments made by each side and the ultimate outcomes of these debates remain unclear. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting began with consideration of minutes from two previous meetings. Mr. Chair presented the minutes from the January 30, 2020, meeting and the February 13, 2020, meeting for approval by the body. The minutes from both meetings were reviewed and approved without recorded discussion or amendments. No concerns were raised regarding the accuracy or completeness of either set of meeting minutes. **Outcome:** Both sets of minutes were approved as presented. ## Blackford Property Phase 4 [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-19-74 regarding the Blackford Property Phase 4 development project. Mr. Nicholson served as the key speaker for this item and requested that the matter be postponed to allow additional time for continued collaboration with planning staff. No detailed presentation or substantive discussion of the project specifics occurred during the meeting. The commission agreed to the postponement request, allowing the applicant more time to work through outstanding issues with city staff before bringing the item back for formal consideration at a future meeting. The outcome was a postponement of the Blackford Property Phase 4 agenda item. ## Dotson Farm Subdivision The Dotson Farm Subdivision (PLN-MJSUB-20-00001) was briefly addressed during the meeting, with Dick Murphy serving as the key speaker for this agenda item [timestamp: 00:00]. The primary development during the discussion was a request for postponement of the subdivision review. The postponement was specifically requested due to the need to conduct a cemetery study as part of the project evaluation process. No detailed presentation or extensive debate occurred regarding the subdivision plans, as the focus remained on the procedural matter of delaying consideration. The cemetery study requirement appears to be a necessary component for the proper assessment of the proposed Dotson Farm Subdivision before the planning body can move forward with its review. The outcome of the discussion was that the Dotson Farm Subdivision was postponed pending completion of the required cemetery study. This postponement allows time for the necessary research and documentation to be completed before the subdivision proposal returns for full consideration at a future meeting. ## Riddell Plaza The Riddell Plaza development project (PLN-MJDP-19-71) was briefly addressed during the meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. Mark with Vision Engineering served as the key speaker representing the project. The primary focus of the discussion centered on a request for postponement of the agenda item. The postponement was specifically requested to allow time for completion of a drainage study that was needed for the development proposal. No detailed presentation of the project was provided during this meeting, as the discussion was limited to the procedural matter of the postponement request. The drainage study appears to be a critical component that requires completion before the development can proceed through the review process. The meeting resulted in the agenda item being postponed as requested, allowing the applicant time to complete the necessary drainage study before returning for full consideration of the Riddell Plaza development proposal. ## Highlawn Extension Lot 28 [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-FRP-20-11 regarding Highlawn Extension Lot 28 during the March 12, 2020 meeting. Staff presented the item and requested a postponement to address several outstanding issues that required additional review and resolution before the matter could proceed to a full hearing and decision. The commission agreed to postpone consideration of Highlawn Extension Lot 28 to allow staff adequate time to address the identified concerns and prepare a more complete presentation for a future meeting. No substantive discussion of the merits of the proposal took place during this brief agenda item, as the focus was solely on the procedural matter of scheduling the postponement. The item will be rescheduled for a future planning commission meeting once staff has completed their additional work on the outstanding issues. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 00:00] The consent agenda was presented during the meeting, with Miss Wade serving as the key speaker for this item. The consent agenda included several development plans that had been reviewed and were recommended for approval by staff. Miss Wade presented the various items included in the consent agenda, which contained multiple development plans that had undergone the standard review process. These items were grouped together as routine matters that typically do not require individual discussion or debate, allowing the board to handle multiple approvals efficiently in a single motion. The consent agenda format is designed to streamline the approval process for items that have already received thorough staff review and are considered non-controversial. By grouping these development plans together, the meeting could proceed more efficiently while still maintaining proper oversight of the approval process. Following the presentation of the consent agenda items, the agenda was approved without any recorded objections or requests to remove individual items for separate consideration. This indicates that all board members were satisfied with the staff recommendations and the development plans included in the consent agenda met the necessary criteria for approval. The approval of the consent agenda allowed multiple development plans to move forward in the review and approval process, demonstrating the board's confidence in the staff's preliminary review and recommendations for these particular projects. ## Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 7 [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-FRP-20-9, the final subdivision plan for Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 7. The item was presented for discussion and consideration by the planning body. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Penn and Mr. Phillips, who provided input on the subdivision plan details and requirements. The presentation covered the technical aspects of the final subdivision plan, including lot configuration, infrastructure requirements, and compliance with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. The commission evaluated the proposal against established planning criteria and development standards for the Willow Oaks Shopping Center area. Discussion focused on ensuring the subdivision plan met all necessary requirements for final approval and addressed any outstanding technical or regulatory concerns. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission moved to approve the final subdivision plan for Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 7. The approval was granted with conditions, though the specific conditions were not detailed in the available meeting materials. This conditional approval allows the subdivision to proceed while ensuring compliance with any remaining requirements or modifications identified during the review process. The approval of PLN-FRP-20-9 represents the final step in the subdivision process for this lot within the Willow Oaks Shopping Center development, enabling the property to move forward with development activities in accordance with the approved plan and any attached conditions. ## Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 1 [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-FRP-20-10, the final subdivision plan for Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 1. Mr. Healy served as the primary speaker presenting details about the development proposal. The discussion centered on the final subdivision plan for the shopping center lot, which required commission approval to move forward. The presentation covered the technical aspects of the subdivision layout and compliance with local development standards. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission voted to approve the final subdivision plan with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available materials, but the conditional approval indicates that certain requirements or modifications must be met before the project can proceed to the next phase of development. The approval of PLN-FRP-20-10 allows the Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 1 subdivision to advance through the development process, subject to fulfilling the conditions established by the commission. ## Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-19-70 for the Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus development plan. The discussion centered on critical infrastructure elements, particularly access points and traffic signal requirements for the proposed healthcare facility. Mr. Leer and Mr. Parker served as the primary speakers during the deliberation, addressing the technical aspects of the development proposal. The conversation focused on ensuring adequate vehicular access to the healthcare campus and the necessity of traffic control measures to manage the anticipated increase in traffic volume. The commission examined the proposed access points to determine their suitability for a healthcare facility that would generate significant daily traffic from patients, visitors, and staff. Traffic signals were identified as a key component of the infrastructure plan to ensure safe ingress and egress from the campus while maintaining traffic flow on adjacent roadways. Following the discussion of these transportation and access considerations, the commission reached a decision on the development plan. The Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus proposal was approved, indicating that the commission found the access points and traffic signal plans to be adequate for the intended use. The approval of PLN-MJDP-19-70 allows the Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus project to move forward in the development process, with the understanding that the access and traffic management elements discussed will be implemented as part of the overall campus construction. ## Schroyer Property Lots 3 & 4 [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-19-73 for the Schroyer Property Lots 3 & 4. The discussion centered on proposed modifications to the development plan, with particular attention given to a drive-thru component of the project. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Woodall and Doug Martin, who presented details about the development proposal and addressed questions from commission members. The primary concern raised during the meeting focused on the proposed drive-thru facility within the development. Commission members discussed the implications of this feature and its compatibility with the overall development plan for the property. Following discussion of the proposal and consideration of the concerns raised regarding the drive-thru component, the commission voted to approve the development plan for Schroyer Property Lots 3 & 4. The approval allows the development to proceed as proposed, including the drive-thru element that was the subject of discussion during the meeting. ## Winburn Estates The Planning Commission discussed the development plan for Winburn Estates (PLN-MJDP-19-77) during the March 12, 2020 meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. The agenda item focused on reviewing connectivity and design standards for the proposed development. Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Simpson and Ms. Castro, who presented various aspects of the development proposal and addressed questions from commissioners. The discussion centered on two primary areas of concern: • **Connectivity issues** - Commissioners examined how the proposed development would connect to existing infrastructure and neighboring areas • **Design standards** - The review included evaluation of whether the proposed design met current municipal standards and requirements While specific details of the concerns raised and the nature of the debate were not captured in the available materials, the discussion involved multiple speakers addressing various technical and planning aspects of the Winburn Estates proposal. Following the discussion and review of the development plan, the Planning Commission decided to **table the item** rather than take immediate action. This outcome suggests that additional information, revisions, or further consideration may be needed before the commission can make a final determination on the Winburn Estates development proposal. The tabling of PLN-MJDP-19-77 means the item will likely return to a future Planning Commission meeting agenda for continued review and potential action once any outstanding issues or requirements have been addressed. ## Fayette Commons [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-20-4 regarding the Fayette Commons development plan. Mr. Pettitte served as the key speaker presenting details about the proposed development. The commission discussed the development plan for Fayette Commons, examining various aspects of the proposal. Following their review and deliberation, the commission approved the development plan with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval and detailed discussion points were not provided in the available meeting materials. The approval represents a significant step forward for the Fayette Commons project, allowing development to proceed under the established parameters set by the planning commission. ## George Mankel Property [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-20-8 regarding the George Mankel Property development plan. Mr. Mankel presented his proposal to the commission for consideration. The development plan was discussed by the commission members, though specific details of the proposal and the nature of the development were not detailed in the available materials. Mr. Mankel served as the primary speaker representing the project during the proceedings. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission voted to approve the George Mankel Property development plan. The approval came with conditions, though the specific terms and requirements of those conditions were not specified in the available documentation. The item was successfully resolved with the conditional approval, allowing the project to move forward subject to meeting the established requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of January 30 and February 13 minutes as corrected - **PLN-MJDP-19-74** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Blackford Property Phase 4 - **PLN-MJSUB-20-00001** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Dotson Farm Subdivision - **PLN-MJDP-19-71** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Riddell Plaza - **PLN-FRP-20-11** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Highlawn Extension Lot 28 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Consent Agenda - **PLN-FRP-20-9** — passed (0-0): Approval of Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 7 - **PLN-FRP-20-9** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver for Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 7 - **PLN-FRP-20-10** — passed (0-0): Approval of Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 1 - **PLN-FRP-20-10** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver for Willow Oaks Shopping Center Lot 1 - **PLN-MJDP-19-70** — passed (0-0): Approval of Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus - **PLN-MJDP-19-73** — passed (0-0): Approval of Schroyer Property Lots 3 & 4 - **PLN-MJDP-19-77** — passed (0-0): Continuance of Winburn Estates - **PLN-MJDP-20-4** — passed (0-0): Approval of Fayette Commons - **PLN-MJDP-20-8** — passed (0-0): Approval of George Mankel Property --- ## Full transcript good afternoon everyone I want to welcome everyone to the meeting today. We are alive and doing well. I hope you are as well. This is March 12. I will call the meeting to order first on the agenda are minutes for approval. We've passed out minutes by email is for January 30 and February 13. We heard there was a correcion, which has been made if there is any other corrections, please let it be known now other wides I'll entertain a motion for approval. >> Mr. Chair, move approval of January 30 and February 13 minutes as corrected. >> motion and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. So let's move on to postponements and/or withdrawals from today's agenda. Mr. Nicholson, good day to you. >> good afternoon, members, Chairman Of the planning commission, nick nichol son here on behalf of ball homes. A postponement request for item number d on page 4 of your agenda blackford property. We continue to work with staff and I believe that puts us on April 9. Anyone wish to speak to this. I will entertain a motion of postponement. >> I move important postponement for one month on April 9, pln-mjdp-19-74, blackford property phase 4 motion motion made and seconded by miss plumlee for blackford property pln-mjdp-19-74. Second by Miss Plumlee I might have switched the names. >> postponements until April 9, 2020. Please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes. Thank you, sir. >> gmp. >> dick murphy on the bottom of page 2, item 2a, pln pln-mjsub -- 21 we are requesting a one month postponement. We have to do a cemetery study on the property. That take a little bit of time. If there are no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Other requests for postponements and/or withdrawals. Yes, sir. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm mark with vision engineering. On page 3 under development plans item b. -mjdp-19-71 riddell plaza, we ask for a two week postponement until March 26. Glo are. >> do you think it will be ready. >> we hope have have it ready for a few days. >> I until I heard the two weeks I was going to ask ask you if an indefinite postponement would be appropriate since it has been going for sometime. >> might be an item you might want to accepted back to the subcommittee. >> the study is critical to this development and to the area. So that's a very valid point that it could impact the plan and therefore impact other aspects and other divisions as well that is actually a very good point. >> in that case, two weeks wouldn't hardly be appropriate, would it? >> seems like a one month. >> which would you like to go to? >> let's gr with one month. >> anybody want to speak from the audience about this postponement? And to make it clear that this is, riddell plaza, pln-mjdp-19-71 until April 9 that would give it time to go back through the subdivision committee which I think he is agreeable with. Motion please. >> I will make the motion. >> Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of-mjdp-19-71 to April 9, request that it goes back to subdivision. >> thank you. Motion has been made. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Pohl for postponement of pln-mjdp-19-71 until April 9. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Any other? >> staff has one item to bring to your attention on page 2 of your agenda, item c, this is a final record plat. 20-11 for highlawn extension lot 28 and it's located at 1422 and 1422 and a half edgelawn avenue. We have received a request for a one month postponement. They have several years that they're trying to deal with at this time. Anybody else wish to speak to this. I'll entertain a motion. >> sure. >> Mr. Chair, regarding pln-frp-20-11 highlawn extension lot 28 and portion of lot 27 amended, move to postpone for one month. >> motion has been made and seconded by Miss Plumlee for postponement of pln-frp-20-11 for April 9, 2020. No further discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on the screen motion passes. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? I did learn that at I believe 3:00 today, the mayor is going to have a press conference, which is going to take gtv3 away from us momentarily so we will not be live. It will be recorded and be available in its entirety after the fact. They will rejoin with us once the press conference is over; however, we will continue on during that process. So first on our agenda... >> Chairman Owens. >> yes. >> consent agenda. >> thank you, sir. Miss Wade. >> thank you. There are several items on your consent agenda today. They can be considered at this time. There are actually two development plans and one preliminary subdivision plan. The first item appears on page 6 of your agenda in item g. Pln-mjdp-20-6 for shellburne plaza properties. the lex mixed use development. This is an amended final development plan located at 501 south broadway. The next two items were recommended by the subdivision committee for reapproval so they've already been heard by the commission once. The first appears on page 7. It's item a pln mj sub 17-77, the town homes at jefferson street phase 3. Preston subdivision and this is also an amended plan. Property located at 516 and 530 maryland avenue. On the agenda there were waivers that were granted and a finding associated with access for that particular plan. Then the second item under reapprovals is on page 7, item b pln-mjdp-20-9, also known as db 98-1 for demand mission disposal services incorporated, and it's an amended -- well it's a final development plan for property located, this indicates off haley road, the original address for the application. Both of those items and then they were recommended for approval by the subdifficult commission committee. The planning commission May consider all of these in one motion for conditional approval unless a member of the commission, member of the audience or a petitioner would like to have one of these items removed from the consent agenda in which case the planning commission would have further discussion about that item. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to have any of these removed from the consent agenda today. again they are shellburne plaza properties, townhouses at jefferson street and demolition disposal services. Those three plans. Planning commission wish to have any of these items heard today? Seeing none, you can take one motion for these three items. >> thank you, Miss Wade. So we do have a consent agenda which is before us that's on the tan sheet of paper. As Miss Wade has defined for us. We have three items, if I wish, a motion to approve those in one motion. >> Mr. Chair,. >> yes, sir. >> agreeable I would move the acceptance of the consent agenda provided by staff. >> thank you. We do have a motion for approval and seconded by. For the consent agenda as read and presented. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. We have 10 independent thinkers and sometimes I need all of those to help keep me in line. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. So to move on, at the bottom of page 1, we have final subdivision plan, pln-frp-20-0 9 willow oaks. We have two of these. 24 one is lot 7. >> good afternoon. We were looking at the on the bottom of page 1, willow oaks shopping center, millpond center, lot 7. This is located at the corner of man o' war and boston road. This is the kroger shopping center. This is an outlot parcel here. there is a bounce you, gym kind of place. Lot 7 is this and they're asking, they're subdividing this into two tracks of land so that sorry about that. Subdividing that one track into two tracts of land and so with that, we have our standard conditions. And several cleanup conditions or a few cleanup conditions and whether or not the planning commission grants approval for a waiver they're asking for a waiver of the sewer line, the improvements so they can go ahead and record this and create the lot before the sewer is in. With that we have several reasons here they said it's due to financial hardship. It won't hurt to create this lot and record the lot with the waiver because that will allow them to do the improvements while they're under construction and they can create that easement one condition is no zoning compliance permit until the sanitary sewer system has been constructed and completed. With the issuance of -- I'm sorry, sanitary sewer has been completed. So that's going to come, sanitary sewer is going to come in through here to connect to this lot. So with that if there is any other questions. >> questions? Apparently not. Thank you. Applicant is here. >> good afternoon. Kevin phillips with vision engineering. Don't really have anything to add to that. request your approval. Any questions for Mr. Phillips ? Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this? If not and there are no questions I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for disution and/or a motion we need two motions. One for the plan and one for the waiver anyone? Mr. Penn. >> I move for approval of pln-frp-20-10, willow oaks shopping center... >> it should be 9. >> went-9 -- 20-9. Willow oaks shopping center with the 13 conditions presented by staff do we have a second? We have a motion for approval of pln-frp-20-9. Willow oaks shopping center. This is lot 7 any questions? If not please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes and then for the waiver. >> Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the waiver for pln-frp-20-9, the waiver you have on the white sheet of paper presented by staff. >> thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Bell, I presume as soon as it comes up, motion has been made by Mr. Penn and seconded by Mr. Bell for approval of the associated waiver with pln-frp-20-9 for the reasons provided by staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. >> we just need a voice vote on that. >> I'm sorry. So just a show of hands, please all of those in favor please raise your hand thank you, sir. We'll move on to page 2 for the second part of this, pln-frp-20-10, lot 1. Miss Gault. >> I'll try this again. Still on the same shopping center of the willow oaks shopping center this being man o' war and boston road, this time we are coming in for subdivision create a lot for a car wash with that I'm having a hard time today. This is lot 1 and they're going to subdivide and create a lot there this being man o war and boston road. They had just sign-off conditions and yes, they're asking for a waiver for the improvements to the land because they're the ones that are going to be bringing the sanitary sewer across to be able to connect to lot 7. This was the one we had previously and we are coming in for subdivision of this they add for the same waiver of the improvements due to financial hardship trying to create the lot before it can be improved and they want to do the improvements at the same time. Sounds familiar. Questions for Miss Gault. Thank you, ma'am. Applicant. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, E.A. Partners, we are in agreement with the 11 conditions. Request approval. >> thank you. Any questions from Mr. Healy. >> thank you, anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request I'll close the hearing and open it up. Like the last one we need a motion for the plan itself and subsequent waiver to follow. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of pln-frp-20-10, willow oaks shopping center with the 11 conditions provided by staff. Motion has been made. Do we have a second? >> second by Mr. Wilson for approval of pln-frp-20-10 willow oak shopping center lot 1. With the 11 conditions please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes. Thank you now for the waiver. I move to approve the waiver pln-frp-20-10. >> second by Mr. Wilson for approval for the waiver associated with pln-frp-20-10 willow oaks lot 1 so I need a show of hands for this. All those in favor please raise your hand any oppose? Thank you so we can move on I think to page 3 pln-mjdp-19-70 hamburg east amended. Next item on the agenda is page 3. Pln-mjdp-19-70 hamburg east, baptist healthcare campus as amended. Now here is this is the outline in question. This is polo club and here is we have cabella's and cost company. Cost costco. It is 129 acres. This is a preliminary development plan on the property and you can see again, polo club boulevard, interstate, here is where we are proposing their main campus along with out lots here and here and in this areaer, again this is a stream and a greenway along with part of the stormwater system that is required in or e. Amp M.P. Stormwater plan that extends through here where we actually have a constructed wetlands in this location. The plan, as you see before you today, again, is a preliminary plan so will you see a final development plan on this the property and there will probably be refinements. However what you see before you today is 14 buildings, again, as I said, the total is 129 acres. It's a large development we don't have the pleasure of seeing those as much as we used to. Here is their proposed main access into the development and it comes, kind of a boulevard entrance into it and then out again here and you can see an internal street system. Here is the secondary access that they're proposing as well. This is the service road that loops around. These are all proposed at this time to be private the median they're proposing to create a nice entrance to the development. As I said there are 14 buildings included, over two million square feet this is a very large development the parking they're providing is over 7,000 parking spaces to serve the campus, proposing garages in these locations along with surface parking staff worked with the applicant diligently to get to the point where you see this. There will be, as I said, a final development plan not only for this area, but when these out lots, you will see final development plans for these outlot developments so we can then deal with the details of their access and layout, et cetera in addition to that, here is a fire station location. This land is being provided and there is going to be a fire station construct inned this location to serve this area of our community those things went forward in a normal fashion and the plan has evolved and you can see again that it went through committee and was recommended for improvement, pardon me, approval, there were a couple of resolution items and there is some history to this and this is polo club. Polo club was approved on its own development plan and the access to polo club was established on that development plan. Now they're set at 500-foot intervals. They're showing two and they exceed that interval and they could actually have had a third one to access the property, again based on the predetermined and agreed upon access now, in conjunction with that development plan there was a note that stated that the configuration of those access points would be determined at time of development. And that was, again, because in the expansion area they were allowed to submit a development plan solely for polo club. Obviously the issue there is about the intensity and type of development that might happen and therefore there was concern about the access points would be configured whether they would have stop lights, whether they wouldn't so to that, when this was brought in and there was a lot of discussion about these access points, and how they would be configured and at one time. We are not concerned about that. Staff is fond of them, we think they function very well but in this case there were concerns and so it was determined they were not appropriate here. So they do have a full access point here and it will have a light there is staff concern, specifically traffic engineering concerninged about the function of this secondary access point. The applicant is proposing a full access point so in the future, that would be their proposal, when it's needed, then it will be installed. Traffic at this time is concerned about full access. And they have proposed an alternative design at this time. Now very simply, and I will defer any specific questions and rationale to the division of traffic engineering about their alternative design, but I can, -- they'll get it up here in a second and we'll show it to you, but again it's about it's important to understand that your staff planning and traffic, we very much are concerned with the way that central baptist will function and function safely and concerned about the traveling public and everyone else who uses polo club and will use polo club so the design being proposed and this is taken from somewhere else in the country, is interesting. It does show a left turn into the property. And it shows a right out and a right in. so, in essence, the difference between a full access point is just there will be no left turn movement out of the campus and that is designed to just try to mitigate traffic conflicts at this time it does not alter the fact that this could become a full access point with a lot in the future should the warrants dictate it. Because of concern that the applicant has with having a full access point and they want one on their plan, they show that they would like to have one determined now. Traffic engineering has recommended this design. This is where we find ourselves today is the need to answer that question. With that I will be happy to answer any questions you May have for staff. >> thank you, Mr. Martin. Questions, Mr. Pn? >> could you put a note on the preliminary development plan that when traffic washts that that would be a full access and the left turn would be approved? >> I believe we could put a note on the plan on the final development plan stating that as the applicant states when the washts dictate, it would become a full access point with a signal, yes. >> it would be on the plan and perceived it would happen at some point? >> yes, sir, we could do that. >> my question is previously you said by right with the polo club development plan they had potential for three full access points. >> they did. Based on the spacing on the original development plan of 500 feet tracey is correct, just to be very -- they get three access points those access points were predetermined. A note on the plan stated the configuration would be determined at time of development. So they weren't guaranteed full access points they were just guaranteed access at that location do you follow the distinction? >> well, could you further define access point and full access point. >> full access point is usually full movements available. It May or May not be signalized. For instance, a traffic signal grants full access. And full movement like a traffic circle. -- traffic signal and traffic circle both. >> could you put it back on the image what is proposed by traffic and show me why this is not a full access point. Show me the difference between what they're proposing and what traffic is proposing and what makes one full access and what makes one not full access. >> there no, sir left turn available to cars on this street. There is left turn available in, right turn in, right turn out. It removes one left turn, again without a signal at this time, you see there is potential for a lot mover connecticut flict with the left turns. >> other questions? Mr. Martin, let me just ask real quick to clarify. Here wanting full, which to me would be 100%, 1, 2, 3, 4 possible turns, staff is recommending right now is getting three out of those four. >> yes, sir. >> and it's not like we are keeping people there once they get in there they've got a second intersection and light to get out as well? >> yes, sir. >> any other questions? If not, thank you traffic wanted to weigh in now or later? Later. Applicant. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, stach for your record, I would say my name is bill. I'm here with nick nichol son as legal counsel on behalf of baptist healthcare and ryan hill and brad boaz is here for the engineers. This is a major development on a major site. It's 129 acres of economic development zoned property. Intended to house a healthcare campus and a number of associated buildings. It is a big deal and it's a big project for economic development , which means businesses and job. That's an important thing to keep in consideration. It is property that has 1900 feet of access to polo club boulevard. The first phase of the project the first section is right here. We filed this to show the entirety for the obvious reason we wanted you and everybody else to know what is intended. Just this and the associated infrastructure is a quarter quarter quarter quarter qua all in it will be a billion plus project. Initially 600 employees and full buildout just campus here, not the associated out lots, it's two to three times that many and for the entire site obviously many more. It's worth looking at the planning history of this site. This is the development plan that was originally approved at the time of the zone change let me set the sequence of this for you because I think it's important. Baptist signs the typical contract to buy the property subject to approval of zoning, subject to approval of an acceptable development plan. That happen in mid 2006. Property was zoned on September 28, 2006 showing three points of access on the polo club boulevard. Then August 27, again before they acquired the property that's a close up of the original one this development plan gets approved for polo club boulevard, own separate final development plan. This is the frontage of the property there was a question, what does full access look like? A picture is worth a thousand words and if you look, that's a median cut there. That's a median cut there, that's a median cut there. This is slightly off of their property. There is hope that at some day there will be a road that will go all the way down there and under the interstate and that would be a point of access. That is where the fire station is today so there was the note about configuration. Nobody at the time this was approved thought configuration meant well, we don't intend to open these up and give you full access how many turn lanes and signalized or not, yes but the kind of configuration you saw today, no is that significant at this stage? Yes, it is for baptist because they don't want to kick the can down the road and I'll show you more pictures which I believe there demonsrate it's not a safety issue but an operational issue. And the first iteration, if you think about the slide I mentioned a minute ago, they're going have surface parking. They're got toeing to build the parking structures until later. The intention is for this to be the employee entrance. If you look at the overall pap the closest way to the interstate is not to come out of this property and go right, it's to come out of this property and go left. So if you want to get to the interstate instead of going in front of costco and cabellas and so forth, you want to turn left. The operational intend of this property is for employees to use the other access point, the second area one so they don't clog up the main access. It's intended that emergency vehicles will ultimately use that access and that service vehicles will use that access. If you are an employee and you want to go to winchester road, you are going to go through this and down to cabella's and take a u turn in front of cabella's at a full intersection that's not designed for u turns. That would be one of the unintended consequences of what the staff has proposed with their option. All we are asking for today is what was shown on the development plan before baptist purchased the property. They purchased it after this was done. The rule of decision is 500 feet. That's baked into polo club boulevard. 500 feet. Assuming this is built and the fire station, whether or not this road is, probably will be an access there. But it's 752 feet. Then you got 816 feet against a standard of 500 feet this is a picture the engineers went out yesterday to take a picture looking both ways, you can see 1500 feet. More than a quarter of a mile. The standard for sight distance, this relates to safety that's looking the other way you can see 1500 feet. You can land an airplane in that if you wanted to, small enough with that sight distance. Here's across the road. They're worried about there will not be any traffic coming from across the road. That's immediately across from where ours -- there is a flood way that cuts diagonally across this. Nobody is going put a road out there on the other side. They don't have the horse power to deal with the corps of engineers on something like this and it would be silly because all that section is just supposed to be a little neck of what is designated to be a park so you are not even talking about a full access coming from the other side you are talking about a three legged point of access that's the flood way I'm talking about it is a ravine that's back to the very first. If you go to any other healthcare complex in lexington and you look at the access on the abutting roadways, it's far more than what they're proposing for this 130 acres. St. Joseph has two full access points on waller avenue and these are collectors they're on and one on broadway, medical campus across the street has two full accesses on broadway one right in, one right out. Two full accesses on mason heedley, st. Joseph east has three full access points on eagle creek and two full access points on blazer parke way and I don't know how many of the U.K. Medical center has. Median is 40 feet wide Mr. Penn, you May remember when we were going through the discussion how wide the right of way would be in the expansion area, one of our model was rich objected road in front of henry clay with ample medians. This is a 40-foot median, safe, plenty of storage space for a car. We feel very strongly about this from the spanned point of operations. We, baptist hospital does just from collector streets this meets every standard that we could possibly have. We don't want to kick the can down down the road as suggested by the staff. Maybe, maybe not. There will be a signal and maybe at that time it will be full everything about this property warrants having a full median cut access today whether or not it's ultimately signalized. Nick, anything? Happy to answer your questions. >> questions for Mr. Leer? >> so what you all are asking for is a second full access point. You are not requesting a signal at this time, is that correct? >> no, no, signaled if and when the traffic counts warrant it. Which could be a future decision presumably come back here but no, we are not asking for a second signal. The engineers would fuss at me if I didn't point this out. Because of signalized intersections both in front of costco and the main entrance here, signalized intersections create gaps in traffic. So that's another way that a left turn would be allowed to take place because you are going have gaps in traffic on both ends. One of the engineers said they didn't want to create another sir barton there are more stop lights and access points on sir barton than there will ever be on this road and the reality is we tested it out. You can get from one end of sir bar ton to another in five minutes even if you have to catch a couple of the lights. And the most important part of that from our perspective, community perspective, there are an awful lot of successful businesses out there with thousands of employees that are contributing to the economy of the community and this is supposed to do the same thing. >> I have a followup questions. Subdivision committee recommended approval and we are talking about item 13 right now, resolve roadway widths and intersection configurations internal to the site. We are talking about 13. What we are talking about is 13. >> yes. Thank you. >> Miss Plumlee? >> thank you. Take you back over there I think you indicate inned subdivision there would be emergency treatment facilities. Will they be early on in the development and which building or can you determine that at this point? That would be in part of the building I originally indicated. >> which part of the building would it be? >> the larger one or the one that -- the square or the rectangle. >> why don't you come up to the microphone as well. I think you also indicated at subdivision, you wanted the second access to be for the emergency vehicles. Is that correct? >> yes. >> and not the main entrance. >> and that's, again, if you think about how the other campuses operate and it's best practices, you don't want your emergency vehicles mixing it with the main traffic and if you think where the emergency vehicles enter the other hospital campuses, it's almost always not the main. >> thank you. >> can I add one thing? >> you May. >> brian hill with sam w. Bill did a great job of making the case for the secondary entrance. One other thought, he talked about phase one for the medica campus but he talked about kicking the can down the road. Well, the intent for baptist is to be able to lease and subdivide and develop auxillary supplemental lots. Try to picture, for example, hotel or someone being interested in this low kiss down the road, how far will that be. >> intend to build hotels? >> I'm just using that as an example. Anybody in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Traffic. Would you like to interject? >> I'm steven parker with traffic engineering. If it is appropriate I would like to make a presentation about three to five minutes long. Would that be okay? >> sure. >> I would like to go back from the beginning of when we saw this plan initially. In November, we awe a plan submitted by cmw, reviewed and we have been anticipating a central baptist health hospital coming in on polo club at some point this was the plan that was initially submitted and it was reviewed we met with representatives from cmw and legal counsel. And discussed our concerns. And provided several documents of recommendations that we thought would be appropriate for this site at that point, we were anticipating future meetings. We waited that at subdivision meeting and there was some recommendations to both parties that we meet to discuss those concerns that we brought up at subdivision meeting last week a new plan was submitted and most significant change was a round about was placed right there on the site. Much of the initial plan submitted did not really change. Some sceats and things changed that were necessary for the plan to move forward, so trats where we were from November to our meeting on believe December 4 to last week. In discussions this is what they were looking at. >> a main entrance with the signal. Secondary entrance with a signal and in meetings prior to central baptist health plan we met with the property owners closer to westchester road and coincidentally, an access point that was shown on their property in which they were requesting a signalized intersection. In reference to the previous plan that showed what they have termed full access points, I can definitively say there is no way to coordinate signals that are that close together sir barton way is not even that close and I'm sure anyone who has driven from where the meyers target signal is up to man o' war, that spacing is almost double the 500 feet that they're referring to. You can't coordinate signals that close. It's impossible. lexington green at nicholasville road and reynolds are very close. Liberty road toddes and brighton shop, old todd's road. Those signals, you can coordinate two but when you start getting three or more it's impossible to coordinate those signals so we look at plans when they say minimum wage, it is minimum wage those were not drawn as definitive points because you don't want to lock in a developer for those access points. So moving on, our initial recommendation to the cmw was the introduction of two round abouts and it was for safety, cost, continuation of movement of traffic as well as creating two full access points, which we were trying to work with the plan that was submitted showing two full access points initially. So learning from other cities, this is in love lin, colorado, sounds look a lovely place. This is a site and it's amazingly coincidentally similar to this site there is a healthcare center right here interstate highway. Round about, round about, round about, round about campus just shy of 130 acres. This is under development right now. It's not completely built out but they have two round abouts that are satisfying the needs it continues to move traffic through. This is zooming in sighter to see the campus itself even has a waterway on one side just like this one vacant land here but this corridor is very similar to polo club boulevard. The expacks area has been built for a number of years and the plan they presented said in 2006. Traffic engineering, police department and several council members have had to deal a number of years with complaints about haze boulevard, blackford parkway, polo boulevard, sir barton way. I would hope that we would learn from our mistakes in the past and if we haven't learned anything for the last 20 years, we are not making any progress. That's why we were looking at something different than what we have done in the past. Sometimes these roads are designed and, you know, there is just not enough band-aids to fix the wound. You can't -- it's just I am toes fix traffic and I lot of times we do the best we can; this is the last corridor currently in the expansion area that can be fixed and done ahead of time and appropriately and learn from the mistakes of the past applicant is not very positive about having two round abouts. So we proposed, well, maybe the main entrance would be a full round about and have a right in and right out at the second entrance. That they explained their circulation pattern of employees, needing to come out at this location so we proposed what you are looking at today as a round about with a right in right out and left in again we thought this was a fair compromise and would satisfy the needs if in deed that second entrance needed to be signalized at a later date, it could be. You can put a signal that close this a round about and it would not adversely affect it. So we anticipated further discussions after the subdivision committee meeting. The postponement that was proposed here on December 12 referenced a need to discuss, but it didn't have anything to do with the development plan. So we anticipated future discussions. Those discussions did not take place at the division level. They took place at the department level. So that was where we are today. We were looking at the round about like you look at the coronavirus, try to limit your exposure. You have eight at a round about. Now with the left in and the right in and right out, it's kind of in between these two you have limited your potential conflict points, those points are accident potential points so it is a safety issue signalized intersections cost taxpayers approximately 10 to $15,000 a year in maintenance, utilities. Things like that. So long-term costs was part of the impacts and while this is economic development we would look at safety as well. This is a video I thought would make -- we were aware of this this is called a texas round about. This is when things go round at a round about so well wear that things can go wrong and round abouts, too, however the angle of impact when there is a wreck, regardless of this one, in most of the time is non-fatal, low injury, low speed, so these round abouts, are more effective than just typical anything out there. As I previously mentioned, we met with the property owner towards winchester road and in those discussions, he has -- their group has mentioned where they have access points and they expect signals. So this shows potential of signals down through here. This one being the main entrance. This one being the secondary entrance and then we have one down here at coster co-and one at man o' war. We don't know what is going to happen at this corridor here. You could have more signals out here. I believe that we were just in our recommendation for round abouts; however, those discussions have come and gone so that's how we arrived at this today. We feel that this would be satisfy the needs, both current and future. There is no crystal ball to make predictions but in our experience in looking at the site, with so much of it vacant, we feel that this is appropriate at this time. >> thank you, Mr. Parker. Questions,. >> I have a couple of questions for you. What are the average number of accidents that have occurred on reynolds road at that round about? Do you have that number? >> I do not have that number. I do know when that was initially installed, there were a number of accidents. It was the first round about in lexington. We did a complete change of signage markings and since that time the numbers have dropped down significantly. I know the round abouts on alumni drive have been very successful. - the number of wrecks in that corridor have decreased. I know the one at frankfort point has been removed. I'm going to take exception with you on synchronizing the lights. And I don't like to do that, but when I come down downtown at eight 8:30 in the morning for our subdivision committee meetings, I hit the light at jacob son park, usually red. It turns green and I'm green all the way to midland coming into town. How does that happen? On rich mobbed road all the way in. How does that happen if you can't -- I know I'm not the average driver because I have a heavy foot, but other than that, how, if you can't signalize those lights, how does that happen for me the first thursday of every month coming into town. >> they're not 500 feet aparted. >> some of them are. >> when you can spread them out, that's what occurs. So, for instance, bell court, two signals. The two works, but when you start throwing in three, four, and more, that's when you have problems. >> I'm coming all the way from jacobson down. >> it's an arterial, plus spacing along there. You would be surprised how far it is. From lexington green to reynolds road is almost 700 feet. So. The ones on richmond road are much longer than that. >> so when the additional lights go on polo club, there is no way those can be synchronized at a busy time like nicholasville road sometimes gets synchronized at a busy time? >> I believe it would be very difficult. You May have a situation similar to what beaumont center experiences where people are three signals trying to get out of beaumont because the main line gets the priority. A round about, you don't have anybody stopping. They're yielding and in that yield condition, it's more efficient movement of traffic. >> it keeps it moving. >> so we have very few, I personally do not drive the round about just because I don't live on that side of town on reynolds road. However talking to several engineers at different firms who do work out in that area they have said there are no backups there. The backups on cur on one side of the tracks and mall road on the other side of the tracks. Those two signals are very close and you have a third signal up the hill at target. That right there explains what I just indicated. It's the close proximity of those signals that are hard to get synchronized when you are heading out at rush hour traffic. During the day, it's not going to be an issue. You are not going to have that much traffic. It's rush hour and looking at these sites in the future, if it is an intense use. I mean this is only showing a third of the development. There are two-thirds empty here. You don't know what is going to be here. If I had a full development, it would be a little bit easier to project how traffic is going to impact this corridor. But we've got the parcel closer to westchester road -- winchester road who has indicated they're ready to start moving on development and we've had some other sites towards cabella's site that have indicated possible developments, depending on those kinds of how those properties develop, you could have a road that is hard to signal with more timing. >> thank you. >> can you go back to the slide that shows potential signals? Show me the two access points from that diagram that I'm looking at on my development plan right now. >> that's the main entrance this is the secondary entrance. And I think what you stated is that when you have three or more signals, that's when it gets complicated, correct? >> well, their plan shows, although it's a road on sman else's property, we have met with the owner of the property adjacent to them. So the plan that he showed had 700 feet, so had you 700 feet and then you had 800 feet between the main entrance and their secondary signal. So that signal is where the fire station is shown. >> the reason I'm making that domestic, I'm making a decision based on the development plan that we have in front of us right now and I don't understand why the note on here that says secondary entrance signalized in future as warranted doesn't solve this problem because we don't know when it could be warranted, technology could change. I don't understand why that's not satisfactory to get this approved by traffic. >> well, the intersection proposed by traffic is safer than the intersection they're proposing. What they have proposed right now, what is shown on the development plan does not warrant a full intersection. The left turn movements can be satisfied with one entrance being dual lefts as shown on their plan. It is a dual left situation. Other questions? >> presumably, if it were restricted in the way it is shown in the development plan with the left only at one of the intersections, that could be dealt with internally with signage. Am I correct in that? >> yes. And talking to cmw representatives, there was going to be way finding signs that directed patients to the main entrance, secondary entrance3 would be used by employees only for the most part. That's not say that someone may meander that way but for the most part, it was indicated that the main entrance would be how people would get to the hospital. And with the round about, our indication was even if you were from out of town, you are going to be making a right turn no matter what, whether it's a t intersection or round about, you are making a right turn into the hospital. That was our indication because sometimes people bring up, well, out of town experience would be different for person coming, eight right turn and that's how we got to the discussion item about how people would get to and from the hospital. >> Mr. Bell. >> Mr. Parker, the subdivision committee meeting, not this most recent but the time before when we discussed this you spoke of the beaumont subdivision and dealing with that traffic currently and while we don't have a crystal ball, you know, it's important to try to learn from experiences. Would you reflect on the beaumont situation currently and the cost that you referred to that it would take to fix the current problem, if you would, if that -- if you remember that conversation? >> a lot of the problem with beaumont is the intersection, although the double diamond crossover has helped with safety, the movement on to new circle is part of the impediment for beaumont so it backs up that far, trying to get out of there, it seems that the left two lanes turning out are the two lanes that get clogged. so very different from the situation. That May be something that the state looks at. But one of the issues that beaumont has is, the state denied access point further down I believe Mr. Leer was the attorney that tried to get that and. >> harrisburg or new circle? >> further down harrodsburg out so I believe the hay makers have spent the money to make improvements along harrodsburg road and beaumont center drive coming out, adding three lanes to the left and that has not been provoked here. At this point the development plan before you, again, does not warrant having three left turn lanes out; nor three lanes on polo club boulevard. >> did you suggest it would cost a billion dollars to fix that? >> probably. Because you've got bridge improvements. There is just a whole lot that goes on in this. That's a pie in the sky: it would be pretty expensive project. >> the point is we need to try to get it right the first time. >> thank you. That goes back to the discussion item about lessons learned on heys boulevard on existing polo club from man o' war up to deer haven to blackford parkway. Once you get houses, once you get property developed, trying to fix traffic is sometimes extremely difficult. Mr. Barker, if I May bring this, I think back to the present can you put back on the screen I guess the most -- yes, that one for what it's worth, there has been a lot of discussion prior to today and today in regards to round abouts. However, this is what is being proposed right now one signalized light and a second secondary entrance. >> correct. >> so we are really talking about the secondary entrance. How much of the secondary entrance to we go forward with today? >> that's correct. >> let me ask you one other question Mr. Hill mentioned a moment ago as far as a possible hotel on the corner, I know it's not planned, however, would that impact that secondary entrance? So what we are going to do now, we are going to move to the rebuttal phase and give you your chance to speak, which is going to be like five minutes. I know you are wanting to get somewhere as well. >> well... I think that ship has sailed for today. Will this get me all the way back to...? While he is doing that, I'm glad that the chair brought us back - away from the round about because were there were a lot of discussions about that. This gentleman wasn't a part of them, but a number of folks within the urban county government were a part of them. And that issue was, until I got here today and heard this, put to rest and not supposed to be discussed today. So I want to come back to this issue about too many signals because to refer to what Mrs. Mundy said, these are not 500 feet apart. Even if there is one, even if there is one here, which May or May not happen, it's 752 feet away and I've had the same experience although my route into downtown is on high street and there are plenty of theam that are closer than that, I believe. I haven't gone and measured them. And they do get synchronized. But this is 752 feet and that's 816 feet. Now I want to go back to the basic premise in the design of this campus and there is a lot of expertise that has gone in. Hospital expertise, including some of the best hospital architects, design architects in the country that are working on this and the idea is so that except for patients, other folks do not use this entrance. Service people do not use this entrance, emergency people do not use this entrance when they're coming in or going out. If you limit this to right out from here, half of those people are going to end up coming out here because it's going to be the quickest way to get and maybe more than half of them, because it's the quickest way to get to winchester road. A lot of them are going to be from out of town to just say one thing about the round about, 60% of baptist current patients are from outside fayette county. They do not come from areas like the ones in the picture that are wall to wall round abouts and they drive them every day the people that come here like the first two years worth of people that drove reynolds road, and I'll say I'm the reason for the round about on reynolds road because when we presented the initial plan and walter May said I don't like this, quote dazzle me, I said how about we put a round about in. 60 accidents occurred in the first two years. The round about is gone. Thanks be. This, from an operational standpoint is not an unusual configuration. It's actually a lot more separated than you see in other areas that have been described as problematic but I come back to what I started out with. This is 129 acres. All of my adult life in front of planning commissions, I have heard the traffic people say the biggest thing wrong with lexington is that we don't have access points. We've cut off too many access points and the best road system is a grid because you got multiple access points. Well, they're basically trying to turn this almost into 129-acre economic development cul-de-sac. By forcing all of this traffic out. It makes no sense whatsoever, no sense whatsoever to take a tract that big that we know is going to be intensity developed and limit access to that extent. We've shown you the safety features associated with that second entrance. You got a quarter mile of visibilty, room in the meade median, plenty of opportunity to get in and out. I drive that road a lot. i do shop costco and cabella's I've come out of the cabella's access point and gone into the cabella's point many times with no difficulty whatsoever. And this one warrants it. We think it ought to be, the note that we put on which doesn't guarantee a traffic signal, but having the ability to have a median cut there and full ak tess point -- access point now is important to the campus. >> thank you, sir. Staff. Rebuttal. And at this point I would offer to combine your time either with yourself and/or traffic, if they would like to. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, your planning staff is cognizant of our role to facilitate your decision making. So again, I'll reiterate what has been said. You are here today to determine the design of the secondary access and sthaf would recommend that's where your focus needs to be. Applicant is requesting a full access. Traffic engineering has offered alternate design. Both parties agree that warrants will determine the future need for traffic signal and again we just, there has been a lot of discussion and we just would like to help keep your decision making focused on what the issue is before you today. >> thank you, sir. >> welcome everyone. Good afternoon. First I want to thank our council members who are here today. Council member richard moloney, council member bill farmer, Jr., council member josh Mccurn, council member jennifer reynolds and council member kathy plomin thank you for being here. I'm pleased to welcome our commissioner of health, Dr. Greg ku mba ll, commissioner of the kentucky high school athletics association, thank you to both of you for being here. I know how busy you are right now. Today the commission and I are recommending that the organizers consider postponing or canceling owl public, in person events as part of our covid-19 response. We recognize that this will be painful for some groups, but we also know that we must do everything we can to protect the lives of our citizens. I want to take a moment to thank all of our citizens. You are doing a great job following the precautions we have outlined. I know this information changes rapidly, and I apologize for any confusion. It is changing hourly. Your willingness to step up and follow the guidelines will make all the difference in getting us past this. Several events have already been it cancel around town. The university of kentucky and translyvania university have switched to online instruction. The city has suspended programming for senior citizens and people are avoiding large public gatherings. I'm told this afternoon there will be word from keeneland about some changes there. And in a few minutes, we will hear from commissioner tackett concerning boys and girls sweet 16 corn taments. But first let's hear from our commissioner of health Dr. Craig hu mba ll who has been a great teammate as we have worked to get information out to the public on covid-19. Doctor. >> thank you, mayor gorton. These precautions today are designed to help us limit the spread of covid-19. We believe that covid-19, like other respiratory illnesses, is spread when people, who are sick, sneeze or cough and that others who are susceptible then breathe in that virus and that is how people get sick. With we are able to limit the physical distance between people, that helps to prevent the spread of disease. So today we know that this will cause some disruption to people's lives. We also think this is a prudent measure to take in order to continue to try to prevent the spread of the disease in our community. We are asking that people who have mild illness stay home if they normally would stay home. They May be worried because of what they've heard on the news, but in most cases, illness with covid-19 is relatively mild and can be managed at home, all right, with tylenol or ibuprofen. Of course if they feel that their symptoms are such that they need to contact their provider, then they should call ahead to their healthcare professional or access him or her by telehealth technology. So these are great ways to do that without actually going into the doctor and potentially spreading virus, whether you have to the flu or other types of respiratory illnesses. It will be very important for people to follow our advice. We need our health professionals and especially those at emergency departments, to be dealing with the most severely ill folks. We've got to put our healthcare workers in the places where they can do the most good in our city. Also, if you are going to the emergency room here in the city or to your doctor's office, please try to take the minimum number of people that you can, not to expose others to inflew influenza or any other respiratory illness that May be circulating at this time. Thank you. I will turn it over to mayor gorton again. >> thank you. Thank you, doctor. Next we'll hear from julian tacket, the commissioner of the kentucky high school athletic association. I think it's fair to say julian has had quite a day. Commissioner tack it. -- commissioner tacket. >> I don't really know where to summarize. We have a special event here in town that was scheduled with the girls basketball tournament followed by a pretty good large scale event next week with the boys basketball tournament. We know the economic engine that those tournaments are for this city. We know that cancellation was uncomfortable: known will ever know how comfortable it was for us. But in the end, the more weep talked to health professionals, the more obvious it was. We were working with several professionals. We tried to maybe find a way to limit a the audience, maybe find a way to space, using the cdc guidelines. But in the end we feel that we are in a leadership position with those events, and we know there were events that were out there saying well as long as they're going, we are going to keep going. And it became very apparent early this afternoon with the latest information and the latest soon to be information that without question, we needed to take a big step. It's hard. The city government has made a big commitment to support that event. It's obviously our life blood. But -- financial life blood but at the same time nothing is worth the health of the citizens of both the city and the state. So we were -- I don't want to say we were happy to cancel but we know on behalf of the citizenry, we needed to. So I appreciate the opportunity, mayor gorton and I'll turn it back over to you. thank you: thank you so much, commissioner. Finally today, I want to let everyone know about a shortage at God's pantry. C.E.O. Michael halligan says they're critically low on sanitation supplies, including sanitizing wipes and sanitizers, although they will maintain their critical services, mike says they could really use some help and so they're accepting donations and I would like to ask the public to call 859-255- 6592 or email info@God's pantry.Org if you can help out. Now I would like to introduce officer cliff gotbold. He is going to provide information for our spanish speaking residents. >> thank you, mayor. (Speaking spanish) >> muchas gracias. We have information about covid-19 on our website in several languages. We know that there are many languages spoken here in lexington, so if will you go to www.Lexingtonky.Gov and click on covid-19 information. Finally today, just before this news conference, I had a briefing from congressman andy barr. He wanted me to pass along a piece of information where there has been some misunderstanding. He asked that I clarify for the public that the european travel ban does not apply to U.S. Citizens who are traveling back to the united states. Thank you so much and we'll be happy to take questions. >> is there any time limit to the recommendation on canceling public events? I'll let Dr. Humball take that one. >> I believe it will be in effect for the foreseeable future. We expect we will be in this for the long haul, not a brief period of time. >> what are the factors that go into making this decision? >> >> several factors, first of all, you know, we understand that seniors and those who have chronic illnesses are at highest risk for severe illness from this disease and we know there are a lot of folks in that category here in lexington. And we felt that we should try to protect those folks as much as possible and that was one of the major factors that went into this decision. >> will this recommendation have any impact on schools? >> so we have been talking with the schools on a regular basis, sometimes more than once or twice a day, and they have been following the situation just as we are and we will continue to speak with them. May have a recommendation on certain after school events or other events that they hold just like any other event. >> are there other questions? >> we are still at two cases here of lexington residents but there are other people that are being tested. >> what was the difference in having the tournament at rupp arena on wednesday versus not having it on thursday? >> >> it would be disingenuous to say that the information is fluid. There is an update every hour. We know more thursday than we knew wednesday and we knew more wednesday than tuesday and there came a point when that progressive amount of information and especially the research done around the country among the various health departments: it began to tip the scales and it began to put us in a situation where it was thought that difficult a choice in the end. >> I would just say to that also. I want the public to understand this is a very fast moving scenarios we are literally making changes and recommendations every hour everybody is making decisions based on latest information to keep the public safe. >> effective immediately. >> I've not heard anything about comic con. >> thank you all very much. >> excuse me. One more. >> I have heard from the blood banks that they need people to continue to donate blood and platelets during this time. They are especially in need of that right now and again that's not a gathering that we would be concerned about so I want to urge people to continue to give blood and platelets during this response. >> thank you all very much. -- I don't know what the language is. >> I would offer that, you know, 1: your recommendation is either for the staff's recommendation as far as the second intersection or the applicant's. There is a little difference there. And then the second part would be signalized now or later. Funding is pretty much a given I think and is agreed upon but you can include that. >> thanks for the guidance. I would like to recommend osh make a motion to recommend approval for pln-mjdp-19-0070 amburg east baptist healthcare campus with notes 1-12 and 14 with staff's recommendation and with 13, with the applicant's recommendation adding signalized now. I think that that is -- something wrong? >> I don't think you need the applicant's recommendation if you are recommending to signalize it now. Because if you signalize it now, there is going to be a light there. So... Okay. >> so I will say with all conditions approved by staff, plus condition 13 adding that secondary access point be signalized now. >> I think the cost is a given they're going to be paying for it regardless. >> my question -- thank you, bruce. My question would be and I think he was trying to follow as to what I was offering as far as the applicant's intersection as opposed to the staff's recommendation for the intersection. >> and Mr. Chair, while he is doing that, what I'm confused on, if you signalize now, it doesn't matter. The applicant's position, they get what they want. They get the left happened turn and what is what. The signalization is the most important thing in my mind's eye. If you signalize now, it takes care of that applicant's issue. >> sore you could say at the time of -- if that's what... As long as everybody is understanding and in agreement, I'm okay with that. >> signalized at the time of occupancy. I hope someone is writing this down. >> here's my question and this is like really more of an engineering question than a law question just so you know and I'm not one of those, but anyway, if there is an interim period between the time when it's going to be constructed and utilized versus occupancy when it's going to be signalized, then we May need some type of configuration to be adopted by you all now which is either what the staff recommended or what the applicant recommended until such time as whatever you want to trigger the signalization. >> I'm trying to say a signalized, when the secondary entrance is constructed. >> I think that takes care of it >> I would shake your hand but... >> to clarify, you are asking for all four movement rights lefts on every side that's possible to be a three way intersection. There is no fourth leg and the signalization would occur at the time of construction of that intersection we are in agreement. Do you have a question. >> I was going to say that tracey was just more aggressive than I was about that but I think the important thing is to get the design of the intersection as part of the motion Miss Wade made it clear. We are using the applicant's design on the development plan that we are looking at right now if in fact it is signalized at the time of construction, does that not resolve the issue you are talking about? That's the bigger issue is what is the design of the intersection and that's what we need to make clear as part of the motion. >> I just have something to add to that. There are some of us up here that are concerned with the safety side of it with regard to design from planning or with it starting with stop lights and that those two are safer than that intersection starting with no stop lights is everything upon construction put the signal in signalize it upon construction for safety purposes as recommended by the gentleman from traffic. >> I'm sure it's clear as mud now. >> so if I May reiterate, Mr. Nichol can correct me if I'm wrong, the motion is for approval of all 14 conditions with number 13 to be a fully signalized full intersection as the applicant is requesting. How is that? >> at the time of construction. >> at the time of construction okay.% so we have a motion on the floor I. Was seconded by Mr. Pohl. Any oter discussion? If not please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you folks. 3:22. We are going to take a five is wellington way and palomar drive and harrodsburg is to the east. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the building layout, so we have proposed building b and proposed building a. This plan was previously recommended for postponement because building a does not meet the maximum setback of 20 feet in the b-1 zone and that has that maximum front setback however on March 9 the past monday applicant was grant add professional from the board of adjustment for a variance for the front setback for building a to actually be at 70 feet. Applicant has addressed several cleanup conditions with their revised plan. They've also addressed two of the previous discussion items through the variance approval that they received on monday. Also what is currently condition number 11, they will need to formally withdraw dp 2016-27, since that plan conflicts with the layout on the current plan. That plan was approved back on 2016. It was just never certified. >> thank you. Applicant? >> ladies and gentlemen of the commission. John woodall on behalf of the applicant. We are in agreement with the staff's conditions and we just ask for approval. I know that there is an objector that wants to speak so I'll address his comments afterward if that's okay. >> it is. Thank you, sir others that would like to speak? yes, sir. >> thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is doug martin and I'm a resident I'm here to object on a number of items? First is the proposed drive-thru will increase noise, odor traffic, dust and light for adjacent residential professional office properties. So my office is in a building that is zoned professional p-1. And I guess on the left side residential and back. And so so you have, you know, a drive-thru lane that is immediately adjacent to professional offices a loud speaker that people ordering food. You have because this is designated for restaurant use. You have lights from headlights. You have lights from the message board. You have lights outdoor lights lighting up, exhaust from the cars. And so, you know, this is, you know, particularly when you have a different zones immediately adjacent to each other you have to take into account drive-thrus - and things like that. That's why and whether or not this drive-thru is appropriate for this particular property. I would submit to you that it is not. The drive-thru is going to cause noise, lights, exhaust fumes directly next to my office. So I'm going to be looking at this drive-thru and people ordering their fried chicken or something like that. Should require a robust landscaping noise light and dust mitigation so these are the kinds of thanks that we do to mitigate between two different uses a b-1 use drive-thru restaurant next to a professional office building is something that shid be taken very seriously. The second item, the proposed driving lanes for the on site parking, they're too small and long lanes of drive-thru traffic for a Mcdonald's or chic-fil-a would block customer vehicles that park on site. Line it all the way down and on to harrodsburg road. So 24 doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of room for a drive-thru lane, if they were to have a very popular restaurant, such as a chic-fil-a or Mcdonald's, so that means those parking spaces would either be not useable or once you used them, you are going to be stuck there while you try to get out. And beyonded that, would you have to get out maybe by going down that, you know, that drive-thru which only has one lane. So if you go to Mcdonald's it has an extra lane to get around. So it looks like it's too small and I realize the applicant wanted to fit as much square footage on this property as they could. But the fact is, it needs to make sense from a parking traffic and that kind of stuff. The third item is proposed right in and right out entrance and the driving lanes for on site parking peer too narrow for emergency vehicles so in and having these sort of tight parking lanes, you are going to have to get emergency vehicles in there and I think the development plan says the right in-right out entrance is 12 feet. I understand that's too small but I'll defer to the traffic people about whether that's too small or not. But good luck, for example, getting in off wellington road and turning right around that really tight turn to get into that building b or whatever the building on the right is. And so the site is just too tight. The fourth item, the proposed right in and right out entrance on wellington will force traffic to the already over burdened palomar center drive. Well, to the right of your drawing is the intersection of wellington way and palomar center drive, and anybody who has gone out there knows that the intersection is too close to harrodsburg road. It is really difficult to get in and around in that area because of the traffic that is coming off harrodsburg road, the traffic coming from palomar. There are only two entrances at palomar to get in and out. If you are gogama loan's only two ways you can do it. An entrance off lyons drive and you have the intersection. Last year they put in a sedona tap house and, you know, and there are zoning regs about how much parking you have. All all those -- many. Folks are parking in my parking lot now because there is not enough parking up there and I have a full time valet up there. So not only do you have the cars coming in and out of palomar but have you all the people going to and from the sedona tap house. Add to that, two more restaurants. He's got two restaurants designated on here and so what is happened, if you are traveling east on wellington way so from left to right in the drawing you are looking at. You are not going to be able to turn into this development because it's a right in right out. You are going to have to go down to this intersection and turn left and come in up by the dumpsters and then kind of come back and wind your way around. And so the right in, you know, this applicant is the one to developed good part of that wellington way. They developed the L.A. Fitness. They developed my buildings and they developed the paer inia -- panera that is there. Access is a problem here but it's a problem created themselves so it has right in and right out but that's going to be tough. It has abintough turning radius to allow sanitation trucks access to the dumpsters and there their proposed location if you look at the very far right where the dumpster access is. Many dumpsters are front loaders. So I May be wrong but it doesn't look like you can come in that entrance and turn to pick it up. The trucks I think are going to have to back in that entrance back down toward the bottom of your screen and front load and go up and unload and go out again and so, you know, someone knows more about traffic than i do can come on comment on that. I guess most importantly, I think an engineering and examination of the existing storm sewers for wellington way needs to be done to verify these systems that this applicant built so they're the developer of my building, are in fact sufficient to support the volume of stormwater coming off the project. There is an easement for about 85 feet of that left property to put water into our storm system the applicant built the storm system and they have built it insufficiently or it has degraded since it was built. I'm going to end up with water in my office because the front corner office is a low point in the driving. I have two drains outside my windows. If they mess this up, I'm going to have water in my office. First of all the drive-thru is or residential and we have the stormwater. All the traffic stuff, traffic people will figure out this applicant is the developer of my building. Let me say this first. I don't have a high degree of confidence that corners will not be cut. This is not a dot the I and cross the t type of applicant. When we took over the condo association in July we were told there were six condominium units that were three or four years behind on their dues six of 20 so I spent the better part of this year foreclosing on six units in my building because this applicant didn't collect the dues when they were in control of the non-profit condominium association. Since July we have been trying get our corporate records because they were in charge of our finances and corporation during the control period. They refused to turn over our corporate records or financial records prior to July. We made numerous requests for this and I guess finally, you know, I don't have a high degree of confidence that that the stormwater system was constructed that will accept the water. I would like an engineering study to verify it can accept all this water from a huge hill that is going to come down and go under our building I think it's too tight. They're putting too much property, too much building on a small piece of property. I think the turning lanes are too small, the water retention is a serious issue and a drive-thru lane right outside my window is far from ideal. Thank you. I can answer questions. >> thank you, sir. >> others that would like to speak in regards to this? >> first thing I'll note, the first we heard of any objection was on monday when we went to the board of adjustment for the variance hearing and the request was made and approved. It was first we heard of Mr. Martin's objection. Haven't seen this letter. I'll simply say this property to my knowledge was originally rezoned in 2013, b-1. The uses that are proposed to be made of it are permitted uses in the zone. Restaurant retail. Mr. Martin bought his property in November of 2017. He is one of 20 other owners in this building and it's not just him in the building. And the silence is deafening, Mr. Chairman, when you ask for other spokes to speak against it. Nobody else is against this development that I'm aware of. The variance was granted. It's also after having been through this process a few times a little naive to think that a plan gets to this stage without intense scrutiny as we saw in the last hearing, from staff and all the good folks that support them in terms of movement, sanitary vehicles, the auto turn diagrams that address these issues that Mr. Martin brought up were submitted sometime ago and accepted by fire to my knowledge and if I am speaking incorrectly, Mr. Martin, you can ceact correct me. But at the end of the day, we have worked with staff to resolve the concerns that they had. The reason the variance was need from the maximum setback was to provide for on site retention to catch the stormwater and move it in the direction of the gravity flow. We couldn't put that it under the building. That's where the system will collect the water so we worked through all these issues and we are, frankly, ready to move forward with this development. I'm not going to answer any of the personal attacks. Don't know, don't care. doesn't matter. That's about all I have unless you have questions. >> any questions for Mr. Woodall at this point? Thank you. Mr. Martin, any rebuttal? >> well, as a former council member, I understand about having public meetings. I've had dozens and dozens of public meetings. The fact is except for the notice sent out by staff, there is not really any letter that comes about this development plan. So I learned about it fairly recently. The applicant, who knows this very well because they're demanding that of the dues collecting from the late condo owners that we give them most of it they know who we are. I'm the President Of the condo association. They know who I am. And so they made no effort to inform our association and what they're doing here. They were trying to do this and the only reason I found out about it, they had to give out notice for the board of adjustment. At that time I thought this had already happened because it was originally scheduled to be heard in February. So as far as me sort of coming to the nuisance, I think his argument was, when I bought my property, I should have known they were going to do this. Their development plan was not filed at that time and the drive-thru window is not a given. It's not a given. and the fact that it has to be approved by this body means there is discretion about within the b-1 zone about what goes there. And about whether a drive-thru is allowed there and about whether the development is appropriate and satisfies all the different requirements and so I would respond that when you buy an office there, you know, you don't know they're going to put a drive-thru and you know you are going to have an opportunity to say no. It is not appropriate. >> thank you. Staff. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, first of all, again just to clarify as I think you are very much aware and we are used to hearing concerns about traffic about stormwater and I would assure you and I would assure doug that the urban county engineer is going to evaluate that stormwater and one of the reasons they asked for the board of adjustment variance on the setback so so that they could build an underground detention basin that will address the stormwater issues out there. That is one of the justifications for that because they do know that they have to address the stormwater issues which we are confident that they will do so or confident engineering will evaluate those plans. The same is true with the functionality of the parking lot and the functionality of solid waste dumpsters. That deeg said I want to clarify something on this plan, and that Mr. Martin brought up and it is very important and I would agree and right over here there is some wording and this showed up on a revised plan. And initially this was just a drive-thru, pardon me, an access aisle. On the revised plan, drive-thru showed up and I will gladly apologize for not noticing that when we reviewed this revised plan because that word does have connotations. Drive-thrus must be approved in this zone by planning commission% or they go to the board of adjustment. Now that being head, there is nothing on here beside that word that indicates that that is a drive-thru. There is no window to pick up, there is no menu board, there is no stacking indicated anywhere. So, again, I feel comfortable stating that staff, including other department staff, we didn't view this as a drive-thru for drive-thru service. And we certainly did not believe that this plan indicates a drive-thru associated with the restaurant. So our recommendation would be that that wording be removed and if they desire a drive drive-thru with a restaurant that they dumb back to this body with an amended development plan so we can address the issues with the traffic generated by a drive-thru, with the lighting, with the landscaping that would be associated with that. We certainly agree with doug in that regard, that had that been, I think in our thoughts and in our awareness in the evaluation of the plan, we certainly would have addressed those types of issues so, again, it is staff's perspective that there is no drive-thru in terms of a drive-thru window for services being propose proposed on this plan, not as shown on this plan. So I just wanted to clarify that with you and I'll be happy to answer any questions you May have for staff about that. >> I believe we do have questions. Sit tight Mr. Tom martin. >> you know doug and I tease each other about being cousins and his wife got upset thinking she hadn't been introduced to me. I'm the cousin they don't want you to meet. >> I won't ask the obvious question. Mr. Martin. >> the subdivision recommended postponement, the staff has worked through, got some additional substraxes and now you are recommending approval. The plan runs out 3-9-20. My question to you is, if we need to see this as a drive-thru, does the applicant need to allow us to postpone this so we can see this as a drive-thru. >> if they desire a drive-thru associated with that restaurant, that is an excellent recommendation, yes. That they postpone and come back showing that use. Yes, sir. >> I wanted to ask that question to you because the process. I don't mind asking the applicant but I wanted to know the process. >> yes, sir. That's a good suggestion. >> other questions? >> yes, sir. Just to clarify the development plan we are looking at right now. It says drive-thru and emergency access lane but it has none of the features of a drive-thru. So you read it as. >> access lane. >> got you. >> and so if it were an actual drive-thru, we would have to see a different development plan? >> yes, sir. We would be talking about all the issues associate with the drive-thru. >> thank you. >> yes, Miss Mundy, question. >> Mr. Tom martin, as you are looking at that access lane cans iting on to wellington there, is that a full access lane can they go left or right. >> it's a one way access but yes, as you can see, in the history of the access, it is interesting. Planning staff, traffic staff for years were concerned about the impact on wellington with the development and I would add this is an amended development plan as was stated. These b-1 uses are legal, previous uses were approved. There was cross access among these properties at one time that is gone away because of a change in ownership on the properties. And, of course, as you all are aware, we encourage cross access to help relieve conflicts and problems on the public right of way. >> I remember that. Thank you. >> other questions? Mr. Martin, could you give us an approximate time as to when this drive-thru language showed up. >> about a week ago. >> that's close enough. >> tuesday the 10th. >> any other questions? >> would I like to ask the applicant quite frankly, what did he mean when he put drive-thru in there. >> do have you an explanation of how drive-thru got on the plan? >> several places I might add. >> banks engineering. I'm not sure exactly the date that the drive-thru showed up but it's been on there for sometime, a little bit before this past wednesday but it was on there mainly as a way that, when we realized we couldn't get cross access that was shown on a previous development plan, we needed a way for emergency vehicles to be able to get out from behind out in the back, not have to back up down through there so that's where it came from. >> thank you. >> he just reminded me of that discussion, that is corect, you that it was there for emergency access primarily and not for a drive-thru restaurant. >> are you okay with that, captain? >> yes, like they said, when the cross access went away, that's when we requested that drive aisle, not drive-thru. And they provided the. >> thank you. >> so then we are saying it's two uses of the word drive-thru in this case. It's not a drive-thru restaurant. it's. >> it's a drive-thru lane for emergency vehicles and others. >> anyone else? If not we'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for discussion and/or a motion. We have revised conditions. I think we've clarified there is no drive-thru restaurant here, so revised conditions. >> Mr. Chair, I move for approval pln-mjdp-19-73, schroyer property lots 3 and 4 with the noted conditions but I want to add a number 12 to remove or strike through where it says drive-thru on here so that there is no confusion as to what that means. So we have a motion for approval adding number 12 to remove any drive-thru language on the plan. Seconded by Mr. Forester. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank everyone moving on, we do have other items. It's on page 5, plan-mjdp-19-77 winburn estates we have revisions on a purple sheet of paper. >> as it stubs into the subject property. This access road that you see there was there to serve the pump station that exists on the property. What you have before you now is the proposed final development plan for this property. You can see again the applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac at the end of ward drive they have distributed buildings throughout the property. There are nine buildings, 208 housing units with 476 bedrooms. So there is a mix of bedrooms in these operates they're all three stories with the exception of a building in this area that are two stories in height. They're proposing this is all the parking areas that they're proposing with the property and with there particular development. The parking is 429 spaces required based on the bedroom count. They're proposing 436 so they're not over parking the property based on the requirements. The lot coverage is at 17%, 25% is what allowed in the zone so the lot coverage is well within the realm of your regulations. The ratio is right at.499 and it's allowed.5 so they're maxing out the ratio and from the applicant's perspective, that's important because, again, this is an affordable housing proposal and when we say affordable housing, this is a subsidized income-based affordable housing to serve that segment of our community. The issue with the plan, and we have worked with the applicant and staff would stress this. We have met with them on numerous occasions and worked with them on this plan to try to develop this plan and get it where we were both the applicant and staff were comfortable with the plan. Now, wait a minute. There is something missing. What I want to demonstrate and I thought we had it loaded up perhaps we don't,. The evolution of this property, it was rezoned sometime ago initially and a plan was approve ed. Here we go. And I'll just point out briefly again. Here is the development plan with proposed parking as it moves through and you can see this is important that this is not a direct route through the property. It's regards indirect and they have parking isolated or not isolated exact word but in areas on the plan to serve the various buildings what is important to note is there is emergency access being proposed to russell cave road. Now here's their architectural renderings. Staff is very comfortable with those. They were presented to staff, to the committee at one time to demonstrate how they envision their units to be built and how they will look. Staff has no issues with the architecture proposed on the buildings. Now as we continue to discuss this, as I stated, we met five times and we had very good discussions with the applicant and staff. We have really, I think, all parties have worked diligently to try to address issues. The remaining concerns come down to the initial zone change when the property was initially approved and its compliance with the sman and as an aspect of that plan, the design criteria for multifamily, they grew out of the plan and were a part of the plan and part of the concern with how multifamily needs to function and work and be more successful and this was particularly important in the evolution of that plan and the winburn neighbohood area. So here's where I was headed with the historic district of the property. He is the preliminary subdivision plan that was approved and here is a key issue ward drive was proposed to be extended and intersect with russell cave road and that was consistent with the winburn small area plan. That connection, it has been made very clear will not be approved by district 7. The state of kentucky transportation cabinet has said no. Now the circumstances surrounding that are the distances involved. It's very close intersection down here. There will be conflicts and concernses about how that will function. There is site distance at the bridge over russell cave road. These are existing conditions and there are safety concerns and district 7 we cannot approve this so that's where we are today and that is extremely significant to this property to the design of the property. Before I go there because I have left out something I want to point out to you about this property and that is you can see the shape of the property, we know where it sits with russell cave road with, in fact I think I'll go... Lets go back. I like this better let's, again, russell cave road, interstate, conditional zoning nat requires buffering along the interstate that is still in place. this is an environmentally sensitive area that exist there is a small pump station that is going to be taken off line soon. At the last meeting I attended, they actually and this was just a week or two weeks ago. They're anticipating all these older pump stations coming off line within 30 days and then utilize the new trunk line and pump station along providence parkway and out that way that you are all very familiar with and that is good news. That is very good news that I think four pump stations will be taken off line in the north end of town because of that work. But I just want to demonstrate to you again with ward drive coming in single family homes here, the impacts of the site and the key, again, to this plan and the street that had been proposed, which is now with district 7 is created a problem with how to get this property to meet the design critera for multifamily. And that is the key here, to the findings and concerns that staff continues to have this plan does not meet the findings that were integral to approve the plan. Those concerns remain and those concerns tie directly into the winburn small area plan, compliance with that plan and compliance with the multifamily design criteria that were developed, an integral aspect of the winburn small area plan. So with the previous submission, you can see again there is a current submission. The architecture not an issue. We think the architecture is fine. We don't have a real problem with that. Our concern is with the site development issues associated with the adopted criteria for multifamily development and again they have certainly hive staff -- we want to be very -- I wanted to make it very clear that staff is unwaivering in their support for affordable housing we understand the need. We know it's critical. We support it and we support good developers. We want to see that. The question here is the integrity of a plan and supporting a plan and balancing these types of issues that we face in our community. And so again they've checked that off but there are other concerns with the plan. And with that, I will add that because you are at a position today and you have your revised handout, today is the last opportunity you have to vote this up or down unless and staff would certainly encourage the applicant to postpone and continue to work with staff. We would welcome that opportunity but that, they have to agree to that because they have their concerns and their issues and we are at that date where it's time to make a decision. So with that, you can see we are recommending disapproval of the plan if we cannot achieve another postponement and continue to work for the reasons outlined that you see before you >> it's outside the applicant's hands, correct? >> there is a nuanced answer there. It can't connect russell cave road, but it can be extended. Now they will elaborate and it could be cul-de-sacked. It is being cull cul-de-sacked right now at its current termination. They will elaborate and explain the costs with that are a big concern to their ability to provide affordable housing and staff is aware of that concern. >> any other questions? >> I'm sure there will be the first of many times you will see valerie and I up here to talk about design related issues moving forward. I think you all know I'm a visual person so I had them print out the development plan for you so you could follow along. I'm not going to pick the plan apart but I want you to see how each of the aspects I'm talking about will apply to that. These are the principles, the seven principles from the winburn small area plan. The argument I'm they're make is about the shift we as the division with you all as the commission... >> let me interrupt you for a second. Can you get this previous this off the screen so we can see other stuff. >> our screens are all messed up. Sorry. Continue. No worries. Hopefully I'm closer and I can read it to you guys. So that first principle says optimize the use of land to promote mixed housing types and options to accommodate diverse needs and affordability levels. so all we are saying that they are checking that box, we really made a conscious shift here with are all's help to do better about building a sense of place, a sense of home, regardless of the income level of the residents. Everyone should get to feel like they belong to a neighborhood. Where this current plan is falling short of the previously approved plan is in its ability to increase connectivity and expand the existing street network for all modes, which feeds into improving public safety through more connected network. So the image that is up there right now is a map of the winburn neighborhood taken directly from our winburn russell cave small area plan. And what it is showing you, everything in purple the network of cul-de-sacs and dead end streets served by a single access point, which is winburn drive the neighborhood has nearly 1500 residents and 600 school children at winburn middle school that are served by that, you know, this one intersection. This has seriously emergency response implications and impacts daily activity such as children traveling safely to and from school. The next image is the long-term vision based on the findings of the small area plan and I can't stress enough and you all know that a small area plan is really a 10 to 20 year vision. It's not near term so the idea that while we might not be able to get a vehicular connection today doesn't mean that we shouldn't still build the infrastructure or at least not create a design that precludes a possible street connection in the future and if vehicular access is not possible at this time, then consideration should be made for fully envisioned bicycle and pedestrian connection to russell cave. This connection should be a clear and intuitive path for the existing residents along ward drive to russell cave and it should be publicly accessible and ungated. So the remaining principle from the small area plan that applies to this site is to ensure that infill development is well designed and sensitive to its surroundings. Which leads us directly into the multifamily design standards. , which as you all very well know, went hand in hand. The multifamily design standards were grown out of the winburn small area plan. I also want to share that all of the standards I'm about to share with you deal solely with the layout and design of the site. As tom already said we don't have any issues with the architecture. It is really how the site is shaping up. It's also really, really important to note that you May hear from the applicant arguments that implementing some of the standards on an affordable housing project would be too cost prohibitive, but I would like to remind all of you that many of our multifamily design standards come directly from hud's affordable housing design advisor check list which means that we as a city, are demanding nothing above what the federal government is setting as their standard. So these are -- this image deals with kind of a street hierarchy. Every standardly show you marked with an asterisk is pulled directly from the hud affordable housing check list. I think one of the largest points where the current plan does not meet the multifamily design standars comes because the site lacks a street hierarchy or any form of street for that matter. And when I say a street, I'm talking about a perception of a thoroughfare, not necessarily a fully public street all the way out to russell cave. The site is currently composed of a series of connected parking lots rather than a hierarchy of street network shown here which has, you know, primary streets, secondary streets, alley ways, et cetera. This can be done by pulling the buildings up to the street edge. It it can be done through sectional differences, through streetscape amenities such as sidewalks, continuous planting zone, lighting furniture, et cetera, and even through material changes. Residents can easily have a front to the building and access their parking to the rear with the breeze way. This is just another standard that really gets at the idea of setting buildings up, facing each other and providing, you know, that enclosure that we've talked about before. And while the current plan does attempt do that in certain ways, the perception of that is lost because you are looking across seas of parking so it's, you know, two big seas of parking to see the other. Kind of our second big point, too, is the continuous network. As we already discussed with the small area plan, future connections should be anticipated as well as clearly delineated by connections regardless of connection it has to be publicly accessible and not gated. We need to think about the 11-year-old kid that lives on ward drive taking the easiest route to russell cave to the laish. We are asking to maintain the rhythm of the existing neighborhood by aligning all buildings facing along ward drive at the same 30 to 35-foot set back. Sb 5 says clear continuous access to the neighborhood. This one is a little subtler. With the current clubhouse located at the man main entry to the development and amen is -- amenities, it provides are really great. It could be located more centrally to the residents. It's all the way to the west particularly if there is a future potential. We suggested to the applicant that they could leverage that central green space and stormwater detention area and include it as part of their central open space. And the kind of difference that you are seeing with this one is that the centralized green space in their plan, is really surrounded on all sides by parking lots so have you to cross the parking lot to get to your -- you know, the grill, the pool, whatever. Your kid has to do that. And surrounded by circulation clear points of intersection. We have been pushing a lot as part of the street hierarchy that means that parking should be to the rear and what you see are parking lots. Way before you even see any of the buildings y'all have seen several cases lately where that has been a concern and that adequate screening is placed between them, which is in addition to the privacy fence that is being provided appropriate to mitigate visual odor and noise impacts. Again I want to stress that we worked with the applicant to provide as many examples and suggestions on how they could meet the previous standards but their plan has not been modified in any significant way through those discussions. We have stressed time and time again that a lack of primary street and continuous multimodal network are really at the crux of our concerns with the current site. I think that's it for right now. Thank you. Mr. Simpson. Since you are coming up, it was mentioned by Mr. Martin, I believe, that one of the possible scenarios and would I have to say a continuation on your part at this point, do you have any interest in doing that? >> Mr. Chairman, we've had, as tom said, I think five meetings with the staff. I think we are at a point where the folks that I represent have gone as far as they can go in terms of their project that within their realm of what they can do at the can't do anymore than what they're proposing today. >> very good. Just had to ask the question. Go ahead. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is bruce simpson here on behalf of the ldg development, a company out of louisville kentucky, they are specialists in affordable housing, they have been in business for 25 years they're in seven states. They currently own and operate 13,000 affordable housing units in those seven states. They have one housing complex here in lexington on glen eagles and they seek to have another community off russell cave, off ward drive here in lexington. Wth me today, if ramona vasta from ldg development and fred eastrich, our engineer on this project, as tom indicated, we've had a number of meetings. We've gone through a number of discussions, relative to what sam has indicated and what tom has indicated and the issue really has boiled down to this road this road from extending ward drive to russell russell cave. Tom has suggested the state refused to allow access to the road. And if necessary, steve parker can I lusm nate on the reasons for that. I've got an email from the executive director of district 7 confirming there would be no access, direct access and, in fact, he has indicated in the email that even the emergency access, which we are showing on our plan, will be subject to scrutiny as well we are showing emergency access and pedestrian access and bicycle access to russell cave along with the sidewalk from our development site. One thing that you need to keep in mind and if you recall about a year ago we went through this probably in your mind's eye add ad nauseum when it comes to plans, comprehensive plan, small area PLANs here guides. They're guidelines they're not ordinances. They're not law. They're aspirational. They are not regulations. They are not ordinances you can take the language and codify it into a zoning ordinance. You can make recommendations to that effect and the urban county council can codify into that mandatory feature, all the things that sam mentioned in her presentation. Those can become requirements, but what she mentioned, none of those are required. Those are suggestions. Those are guidelines that can be followed and they're mostly used -- in fact, always used at the zone change application stage. And in this case they were used. And in this case the applicant three years ago submitted a plan, which, as best as they could, followed many of those guidelines and submitted a plan which showed the street going all the way through from ward drive to russell cave. That plan never got developed. And if you will allow me a few minutes to show you the history of this particular 13-acre property. This property has never been developed despite numerous attempts to do so. The first attempt, before 1969, it was a farm. Frank can probably tell you more about that than myself. But in 1969, the property was zoned for professional office. This is a 13-acre parcel. As tom indicated, bordered to the north by I-75. Got some significant constraints. It's got wetlands. It's got a creek. So the first development attempt was as a professional office. And it sat there zoned professional office, could have gone in there and put a business, from 1969 until 2000, 31 years. No business, no office. And then in 2000, it was an attempt to request for a residential zone. It went through the planning commission and approved and then it was withdrawn before it went to council. So it sat there from again from 1969 up to 2005. Another attempt at rezoning for r-3 and the planning commission denied that zoning request so it has been rezoned still, professional office. No development until 2006. And at that time there was an attempt, let's make single family and it was rezoned as single family. 71 single family homes in 2006. And it sat there from 2006 until 2017 and it was not developed. It could not be developed. in 2017, it was rezoned to r-3. Which is what it is today. And the applicant sought to develop it as affordable housing and then found out the costs were so high, it couldn't be done. One of the principal reasons is the public road takes up a third of the land. A third of the property. So it sat there for three years and he decided, well, I've got to sell it and so he made it available and ldg has come up with a proposal this is all they do. To develop the property into a handsome residential community no one disputes the architectural design of the community. There are some significant differences in what was proposed three years ago and what is proposed today. Primarily in terms of the number of three bedroom units, which I think because they're in a business of doing affordable housing makes this more marketable in addition to not having to put in the public road which makes this unmarketable for affordable housing 23 they have to put in a public street to take up a third of a 13-acre site. The original proposal for three bedrooms was 40. They were going have 40 three bedroom units. We are proposing 104. The original proposal out of 3,000 square foot clubhouse. And this is 4700. The original proposal had eight of the buildings 20 feet away from the right of way on I-75. We only have 3 between 30 and 45 feet away. we don't have all of our buildings backed up to the noisiest part of the surrounding areas. And we are not putting our residents out on a dangerous area of russell cave road that doesn't comply with the separation standards, which are 1200 feet between roads accessing a public highway and limited site distance coming over the bridge going southbound on russell cave road. We are not pulling our residents in danger there. But we are creating emergency access point which is important for all of the residents in winburn. We are doing that, which is important. And it is a handsome design. It's not a public street and the reason we are not getting the staff's approval today is because it's not a public street we met with the staff and the last meeting we had and I said correct me if I'm wrong, but if we built a street to public street standards even though we can't get out on russell cave and we were able to do the things you are talking about would we be in compliance and the answer was yes, we could do the things if we built a public street and then did these design features that sam talked about. Well, okay but then the project fails. Why build a road that you can't access russell cave to satisfy design features and run the opportunity to have affordable housing so we are talking about a balancing test of having high quality affordable housing. Rick is here, the director of lexington's not only for affordable housing but the developer and I know the applicant, you don't see it in the comprehensive plan but in the real world of doing development and approving decisions, if you have someone with 25 years experience with this kind of a record, that's an opportunity. That is a real opportunity for affordable housing. We give a lot of lip service to affordable housing. We don't implement much affordable housing and we have a real opportunity with this particular application, so the choice is approve or not approve now when I talked to tom earlier and I'll ask him again in terms of complying with the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance, are we in compliance with those today? >> we'll continue your presentation and we'll get rebuttals after while. >> I'm not rebutting, I'm just asking a question. >> I understand but he can provide that rebuttal after the fact. >> my understanding that we are. Now I know we got a different plan. We have a different plan than what was approved three years ago when the different applicant came before this body and got a zone change but there is a reason the reasons we can't get on I --- we can't get on russell cave and so the question is are you going to force this applicant to design a public street that can't access russell cave simply to comply with some suggestions, some guidelines that aren't law, that aren't ordinance, that aren't requirements? Now, yes, rezoning was approved based upon compliance in part with the winburn small area plan. It was also approved based upon the goals and objectives of the 2013 comprehensive plan. That was item a in your first findings of fact. And just because it's one of the items that's a finding of fact for rezoning doesn't constitute or an only indication that is not the law in terms of governing a decision for a development plan after the zoning, particularly when the road is not going anywhere meaningful. It's just going to serve that small parcel that is constructed by wetlands, a creek, an interstate and a third of it is going to be concrete road. So we've got 208 units of high quality affordable housing from a company that knows what they're doing it's an opportunity I don't think we can pass up. I want ramon ato come forward, I'm going to pass out a handout. She is going to go through very quickly what her company does and some of the design features that we are talking about and she is also going to talk about some of the elements of the winburn small area plan that we do address, some very important ones, by I the way but at the end of the day, it's a balancing defendant. We have an opportunity for affordable housing, handsome in terms of its architectural features which no one denies, that is safe, a complement to the existing neighborhood and certainly worthy of your all's approval. >> has he mentioned I'm ramona development manager with ldg development based out of louisville, kentucky. My apologies: it's miscommunication on my part. I didn't bring a flash drive so I apologize it's not on the screen but we have the old school paper version so I would ask for you guys to just follow along with me so again, some of this is repeat from bruce but just to talk a little bit about ldg, we do have over 25 years of experience we have a commitment to long-term high quality durable construction of affordable housing. Most people, when they drive by our developments, you can't tell the difference between whether it's an affordable housing development or a regular market rate apartment development. We have developed over 13,000 units of housing, which is 70 plus communities across seven states. Kentucky being our home state. Tennessee, louisiana, georgia, texas, virginia and kansas. Our motto at ldg is everyone deserves a quality place to live. So no matter your race, your economic status, you know, how much you earn, we provide a safe quality place for all to live just a couple of things on recognition. We were in 2017 the number one -- thank you for doing that. We were the number one affordable housing developer in 2017 number two in 2018 and we are still awaiting the results of 2019. Most recently we were recognized by khc for river portlandings in louisville kentucky. This is a very innovative project where it's an interester generational community of family apartments, apartments for seniors 55 and older and family scholar house which houses children aging out of foster care as well as single parents and helps them get through schooling to be able to work and provide for themselves next up our kentucky development portfolio, this is just a partial list but you do have development in georgetown, we do have a development, an older one here in lexington, glen eagles apartments off man o' war boulevard near the costco. In louisville we have over look terraces, brook stone senior, brook stone, bristol bluffs which was recently completed at around the end of 2019 and jefferson green which is close to the jefferson town mal if you are familiar with louisville is currently under construction. These are family apartments, targeted toward family. That's why we have a good number of three bedroom units but there is a mix of one, two and three bedroom units for families and 208 total apartment homes that we are proposing. The next couple of slides we can quickly go through but these are elevations from our architect that show that the buildings do indeed look like they do in the rendering and all of our development so we can who have through that this is town commons in liz deathtown -- elizabethtown. All of our developments have a very consistent look to them. So known for our developments are adding as many amenities as we possibly can for our residents. We have the clubhouse which houses a little kitchenette, tv lounge, seating areas, fitness center, business center for those needing to use the computer swimming pool grill picnic area, benches and seating throughout the site, playground, on site management which is very important as well as on site maintenance staff and 24 hour maintenance number as well and what we are proposing is gated access tore nights and weekends. Next up is, unit amenities, typical for our developments, dishwasher, microwave, balcony, ceiling fans, washer dryer hookup and vinyl plank flooring. It is beautiful. And tile floors in the kitchens and baths. The next slide is just a few photos, a little hard to see on the screen but on your pages probably easier. The bottom left is our clubhouse at bristol bluffs and the rest are just photos from units inside the units. Next up, this photo is actually from also from bristol bluffs, our computer center, which also have tables with crayons for children like for people. Bliss toll bluff is was recently complete we are proposing the same type of program, if and when we get through the development plan approval process, we will be reaching out to local organizations to put on a similar program here for the residents. So next up, a little bit about, I won't go too far deep into the whole affordable housing 101 but basically just wanted to let you know that our developments are financed with the low income tax credits tax exempt bonds by the kentucky housing corporation. We do use conventional bank financing as well as hud financing and sometimes soft funds or gap funds are used by the local housing authority, khs additional funds that help us fill gaps when are is necessary to get the development done. So this isn't public housing by the actual housing authority. We are a private developer but we provide housing based on hud's definition of affordable housing and there are certain rent and income limits that we have to follow. Next up, this is just an example for lexington. The median income for lexington for a family of four example is 74,500 and so with this development, we would be serving families that earn between 40 and 80% of that income range so that's 29,800 to $59,600 for a four person household. The next slide, these are the maximum rents that could be charged although there is a difference between maximum and achievable rents for an area. So these are just the maximum per hud guidelines based on that 40% of the area's median income to 80% and so this is the max rent range although those higher end numbers are very likely to not be that high. Next we can probably just, you've already seen the site location from one of the earlier slides. That's just an aerial view but next up, this site plan is different from the ones that you guys were looking at previously. I asked fred to, our civil to add in the landscaping so that we can actually see wht is going on here. There is a lot of green space, grass, landscape buffers on the site and I know that that is very important to for residents to have a place to walk around, to have green space to go to and hang out and not only see a sea of parking so we have done that by -- we've done that by, I talk with my hands a lot. We've done that by adding landscape, you know, different areas like every so many spaces in the parking lot as well as burring. I just want to talk a little bit, somewhat of a summary of the different conversations we've had with planning staff to answer, address, respond to some of the concerns. Variation from the approved development plan. We are a different developer, different civil engineer. Our building footprints are dramatically different from the previous developer in that we have a prototype that we use over time that we have developed that now that we have a design in place, it helps keep the design costs low each time we develop so we are developing apartments for families and so the footprints are larger than the previous applicant. 2 knowledges -- also with the three bedrooms is very strict parking requirements. With the municipalities we deal with they're one and a half spaces per unit where heers in lexington it's.9 spaces per bedroom which ever is larger so the three bedroom units really makes it more difficult to work with the smaller site with those significant parking requirements. Public road, which I will get into a little bit more after this slide but the cost of the road plus I am improvements and the required size of the road is another reason why we varied from the initial plan we do have site constraints when it comes to parking as I mentioned. Wetlands, we typically try our absolute best to avoid wetlands because of permitting costs to mitigate as well as we do a lot with hud financing and it truggers many more environmental reviews that take months to get through. So we just try our best to avoid wetlands at all cost. >> ects coup us me life hive excuse me. Let me interrupt for a second. With the applicant's presentation being 30 minutes, you are down to eight minutes just to let you know. >> I'll get through. I'll make it fast. So bottom line, 208 units helps to make the development feasible and affordable housing as you know is desperately needed. So getting into the public road connection, as bruce mentioned, we lose almost a third of the site due to the width necessary for the road. Road. We are looking and this is actually on the conservative side, upwards of $600,000 to to put in a public road as well as whenever a public road is put in like that there are going to be requirements for improvements on to russell cave as well. Again it's just economies of scale, the development is not viable with the smaller unit count when you have additional costs and not as many units to spread it out over. It doesn't work and investors they want a return on their development so it just didn't work out feasibly. Another thing, next up. As I mentioned, kentucky transportation cabinet has currently says no to the access, there is not enough site distance for ingress and egress. Connection is highly unlikely. Weigh have proposed emergency access which I know is very important for the neighborhood so we propose crash gates as well as move the emergency access as far south possible to allow for as much site distance for emergency vehicles. Controlled access gates, it's just strongly desired. It cuts down on illegal dumping, lowers the rate of car break-ins. I will say this is not a deal breaker for us as far as controlled access gates. It's just very strongly desired by property managers and we propose to leave it open monday through friday during the day and just close it nights and weekends if that would be acceptable. Fencing. Bottom left and the right side of the photo, you can see what our typical fencing looks like. It's aluminum, mostly decorative. Discourages people from cutting through our single family neighbor's yards. I want to get to the design standards. Fox run yeah, so this one is right down the street from the development from our development and it shows fencing that is similar to ours so I just wanted to point that out. Position of the clubhouse, so it was mentioned earlier about accepts of place and we do, our developments our clubhouse is a welcome feature as you saw in the previous photo, the aerial view, 99% of the developments, the clubhouse is the first thing you see. Residents stop in, they pick up their mail, on a first name basis with the property leasing folks. It's just a consistency among our ldg developments. Okay. I want to get into the architectural design. I won't talk too much as was mentioned earlier architecture design does comply which is at least, I don't know, 20% or so of the multifamil guidelines. The open space and landscaping, while we don't sit every bullet point, I feel like we do meet a lot of these but also some of them we might meet partially, for example. Let's see, the ones that deal with the road connection. So even though we are not providing the public road connection, we are still providing the sidewalk, bicycle connection. We do have sidewalks throughout the site. i guess visually it doesn't look -- planning staff was not, I don't know the right word I'm looking for, with what we've shown, saying that it's not a very good flow, I guess to our sidewalks but the sidewalks are all handicapped accessible, they interconnect throughout the entire site. We would place cross walks, speed bumps as necessary throughout so that everybody is able to access every part of the site as well as ward drive and russell cave. We have provided stormwater detention per the design guidelines, all paths are handicapped accessible. Regarding site lighting, we always get a photo metric study from our engineer, electrical engineer that shows the lighting path. So we aim to obviously not disturb our single family residents and make the site lighting appropriate for the site and our architect gets involved in the design as well as long with kentucky utilities and lg & e because we lease poles from them typically so they would have a say so in the design. You guys can look at the rest of the bullet points but overall, I will say we've done it was mentioned that some of the design standards were taken from hud and we've literally done dozens of deals and developments with hud financing and they're hif hive they have never had a problem with the way that we lay out our sites. A lot of our sites are fairly similar and we have to work what we are given sometimes so, you know, number one, everyone deserves a quality place to live, affordable housing was we do when I say that cost is an issue, it doesn't come from a place of greed or anything like that. It comes from a place of feasibility and actually getting a development done and so if, you know, if we don't get the proper returns for the investors and lender and we are not able to pay the mortgage, then we can't do the development and so that's where it's coming from. So we were respectfully ask for you to consider our development for approval. Thank you everyone. >> thank you. >> questions May come later. Mr. Simpson, you have one minute. >> I'm sorry. >> you didn't do it. >> one critical consequence of putting the road in and also putting in the three bedroom units that we are proposing, which is two and a half times greater than what the 2017 plan proposed, is that if we put the public road in with those three bedroom units, we would lose 112 units. The most units we can put in would be 96. Which obviously is not feasible. So there is a major consequence of our plan and also being required to put that public street in. So for those reasons, we would respectfully request that you approve our request and when we get to that point, I have some suggestions on the conditions staff has proposed with respect to approval. thank you. >> thank you, Mr. Simpson. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? No? Okay. So questions from the planning commission? Yes. >> again, yes, fingers are coming up. >> Mr. Simpson as we are looking at this site, this is a difficult site p 5 to the north, russell cave which is, you are not going to be able to gain access to other than emergency access. If that is something you can't work around because of expense. It looks like the staff wants to work with you to help make this work and the question is connectivity and not how to create thiscrossed. There are solutions to work on to not extend the road but continue connectivity. You don't want to go back and work with staff to determine how to provide the connectivity that would make them happy? >> it's not about -- it's not a matter of wanting -- not wanting to work with the staff, we have met with them five times. The issue is the staff wants a public street. The cost of that public street and the amount of land that it takes up makes this a deal-killer for us. >> I'd like to hear the staff's response to that, whether or not they wanted -- is that the deal breaker, the public street or not? I'm seeing heads -- >> it can be a private street built to public street standards, but when we met with them last, I asked them, is where we are, is this that we need this public street or private street built to public street standards and the answer was yes. >> bruce, if I May -- no, that is ok. Let's stick with specific questions and back and forth rebuttals can come after the fact. Ok? I'm sorry. But we can get to that part. Other questions? Yes? >> I guess this is for the lady that represented the developer. Is this a build and manage or build and sell project? In other words, when you complete this out, do you stay and manage it or sell it to a property manager? >> yes. So we stay in it as long-term owners of the development, but we hire a third-party property management company, we typically use winterwood who has a lot -- they manage thousands of units. >> as far as the property is concerned -- >> ass far as the property is concerned, we would not turn around and sell it or -- we stay involved. We are the owners, our company is the guarantor of the loans of the khc kentucky housing guidelines, there is a minimum of 15-year compliance period, so we're involved in it and -- >> so you couldn't sell it for a minimum of 15 years? >> we're long-term holders, for that. >> Ms. Mundi? >> who manages or takes care of or gives oversight to these youth youths that you have in the facility that are transitioning? I've been involved with a situation like that and it is -- >> oh, well that is a separate development, it was called family scholar house -- >> so there. >> this isn'ted same type of housing, that was just one of the developments that we partnered with, the family scholar house in louisville. But they offer those services at that development of youth aging out of foster care to help them get into educational programs and single parents as well. >> so there would -- >> this development is different from that in that it is just family apartments, but we will offer on-site monthly programs for residents, that is voluntary for the, you know, financial empowerment, things like that. >> thank you very much. >> other questions? >> I also have a question for you, if you don't mind. You said you avoid wetlands as much as possible. And as I look at the site plan, the treatment of the wetlands is reflects that attitude, you know, I'm looking at a lot of six-foot retaining walls, just encircling -- almost completely encircling what could be nice amenities, but clearly walled off and not -- not exploited in any way as a potential amenity for the community. I just -- I wonder if you could address that? >> um... Well, there are -- sidewalks throughout. for people to walk throughout the site. It is still a visually pleasing eye would say our civil could probably speak better to the visual design aspect of it. >> the site has a lot of relief in it. So to build the large buildings as close as 30 feet apart in the parking lot, we will have to fill and cut. As you know the wetlands and streams in a low area. The planning staff requires you to show retaining walls, and without a detailed grading plan at the time of submittal, I put retaining walls where I thought they would need to be placed to accomplish the grading and filling of the parking lots and building pads of all the relief on the site. It will be a lot of grading on the site to get it where it can be built upon. >> Mr. East ridge, I'm sorry. If you would, we know you. >> I'm sorry, I'm fred east ridge for san teracorporation. I'm sorry. I forgot all about it Mr. Chairman. >> that's ok. It has been a long day. >> so anything else? No? Other questions? Anything else? Let me ask one thing. You mentioned preferred gated community. So does that mean -- obviously, limited access just to the residents? >> that's what we're proposing for nights and weekends. It's just our property manager and internal portfolio managers, it's what they prefer. A good majority of our newer developments, it has worked so well in texas, georgia, tennessee, that our developments -- everything that we have currently in the pipeline in kentucky is proposed for controlled access in and out. Again, it is not a deal-breaker, it is just something that we're requesting and for it to be open, you know, monday through friday and closed nights and weekends. >> ok. >> we're willing to work. >> thank you. Thank you. >> yes? >> I have another question for you regarding that as well. So it sounds like the staff is really concerned with how you can make the connectivity from ward drive to russell cave. It's difficult. I can see how it is difficult. Would you all be opposed -- would you be opposed to the same gate system you have in the front of the building at russell cave to allow pedestrian access for the connecting neighborhood at ward drive during certain operating hours? >> we would -- well, I think there is a certain type of gate that has to be used for the emergency access on to russell cave. Click to enter. But there would be some -- a pedestrian in and out, if you will, in the gate. I'm not sure what type of fencing -- bruce -- fred might be able to speak to it. I know there is a certain type of fence required around I-75 like 8-foot or something for noise barrier and a certain type of fencing that probably has to be used for russell cave, per regulations. But we can provide a fence that has a pedestrian in and out so they can get in and out of the gate. >> that would help with connectivity? >> yes. There is a sidewalk that shows -- that leads to russell cave. That is shown on the plan, currently. >> ok. And a question about parking on the development plan. You are doing 0.9 parking spaces per bedroom. Are you doing that because that is what your market demands or -- maybe not taking -- >> no. Typically we're around 1.5 to 1.7 spaces per unit is our normal -- normal for our developments. But the lexington -- lexington's requirements are 1.5 spaces per unit or 0.9 spaces per bedroom, whichever is higher. Which makes all of the three-bedroom units 2.7 space requirement per unit. So that's part of the tough part about making that site work is that we had to get a certain amount of parking spaces per lexington's requirements. >> right. But what we have seen with staff is staff is willing to work with parking reductions in order to help decrease density and help -- >> mentioned that in the last meeting. The thing is that there is nothing set in stone and there wasn't really a time frame given. We have a short -- we don't -- I mean, without giving details of our purchase agreement, we don't have very much time left in our due diligence period, not sure if the seller is going to extend. So we're -- we can't really say because we don't have any guaranties of parking reduction. >> any other questions? We haven't done rebuttal yet. We will do that. And I guess Mr. Simpson, you would go first. Official rebuttal time. >> rebut what? Nobody said anything yet. >> ok. Well, we have been going on it here for a good hour, I'd say. >> excuse me? >> we can look to the staff. >> he can't -- >> in order of our agenda, you know, Mr. Simpson, do you have anything you want to add? >> closing statement or rewhat rebuttal. >> usually staff would say something. I would say something if they did. There is nothing to rebut if they haven't said anything. >> if you have nothing to rebut, we'll move on then, you know, give the staff an opportunity to go as well. >> that is the way we have done it. Petitioner's comment, rebuttal. >> I don't believe we have anything specific to rebut, perhaps some clarification. first of all, yes, the plan does meet article 21, the land subdivision regulations are not applicable. There will be no subdivision of the property. From the technical perspective, yes, they meet the parking, the far and lot coverage, that sort of thing. We really need to clarify the street situation. Staff did not insist upon a public street. What we agreed to an understanding is that the design criteria worked very effectively with a public street. What we did say to them is that we would like for them to -- this is my word more than other staff member's is mimic a public street. Try to create a layout that provides that feeling of a public street is what we were looking for. And the connectivity and then allow the criteria then to be applied. Applied. A granted that poses some design issues. It does that they would have to answer and they would have to deal with. But as -- we didn't insist by any means upon an actual public street. We're aware that the vehicular access to russell cave road is off the table at this time. We would like to see a nice, clear, well-defined bike-ped path connecting the neighborhood to russell cave, we think that would be advantageous. Granted there is movement through the property. You can see the sidewalks. we think that a nice, clear access well defined access would be an improvement, certainly in it their connectivity. >> that's it? >> that's it. >> can I ask him a question? >> yes, you May ask a question. >> Mr. Martin, let me get clarity here. Woodburn is a challenge because it is the biggest community with one way in, one way out. They have been talking about some connection to citation road? Where is that? >> it isson going. Moving forward. >> that seems to be going forward, they would have access to it. >> yes woodburn drive will eventually connect to citation, yes, sir. >> ok. Ok. >> I think there is another small concern that I have. I just lay it out here on the table. Wind burn is a real special neighborhood and I understand the affordable housing. I don't think there is a soul up here who would be against affordable housing. If you look at this plan, that is where all the apartments are. What we tried to do in this community is spread this stuff out through the community, not have all housing, affordable housing in one area, so to speak. Yet that's what we have here in wind burn as such. I will sort of say, that is kind of -- we're all for it, we want it, but we would like to disseminate it. >> and I mean, -- >> you don't have to answer. >> kc encourages that sort of thing. It is a function of economics. >> I hear that. >> yes, sir? >> tom, I have another question about this development plan. So what you are saying is the ward drive extension, you all are ok with the cul-de-sac there, but you wanted -- I guess more effort from the civil designer is to, like you said, mimic -- mimic a private street, not at the expense of a private street, but mimic that kind of -- that connection rather than it all being accessed by parking lot? >> yes, sir. >> is that a better way to describe it? >> yes, sir. And that allows the criteria to kind of fall into place and complement each other and work. >> I understand that the parking requirements is something that we're working on to increase density, which then increases density. Now, I know that there are some parking -- you can get some parking credits. >> transit and bike. >> transit and bike. >> they're not allowed any regulate regulatory relief at this time. Infill allows -- >> do we not have relief for if you deed restrict affordable housing units you get a reduction in parking requirements? >> no, sir, not current. >> maybe their parking requirement requires them to have 438 spaces, which we now are looking at a development plan that instead of having a mimicked road system, we have a parking lot system? >> yes, sir. >> so this is difficult situation. >> it is a difficult situation, yes, staff has acknowledged that, certainly. Yes. >> I do want to say -- we didn't -- we didn't share it with you all, because it just -- it didn't seem appropriate, but we did -- valerie and I did work on a mock up of how you could do it and fit in our design standards and kind of work with the idea of pulling a road like, you know, basically a cul-de-sac extension toward the back of the property. And it doesn't have to be, you know, a full public access road, but the idea is that you, you know, you eventually some kay it could be, so the infrastructure and the width is there. But we were able to get the things to work, to get their buildings on-site and we tried to work with the applicant as much as we could, and you know, even give suggestions on how to make it better. So we're at a bit of an impasse. >> were they receptive to that? >> no, not really. >> ok. Mr. Simpson, one minute. >> I offered rebuttal earlier, and you declined, I will give you one minute. >> because nobody said anything for me to rebut. >> you had your chance. go ahead. >> fred, can you come up, and also ramona? There seems to be the implication from staff that we weren't willing to work or listen with respect to their design. And I know fred, you looked -- you reviewed their proposed design. And share with the planning commission what we would have had to have done in terms of redesigning our project regarding this street, be it a private street or whatever you want to call it in order to comply with their wishes? >> yes, sir. >> I would just -- >> let him answer the question. >> the situation is the private street has to be built according to public standards. In putting the private street in, we would have lost a lot of parking spaces. They were showing parallel parking on the private street, which is not good. Their plan was very well thought out, it was a nice plan. Some of the aspects did not fit this site. They had taken areas from a detention base and put it in the wetlands, which won't work. The bottom line is to accommodate their plan, we would have lost units. That's the bottom line. >> thank you, sir. I will end this here at this point. You know, we have gone through presentations, we went through the rebuttal phases, questions, so at this point, I'm going to close this part of the hearing. open it up for any discussion among commission members and or a motion at this point. So first any comments? From anyone? >> I'm going to make just some observations. You know, I guess when I look at plans, I see a lot of things that maybe other people May not see. And through this whole discussion, I guess I'm under the impression that the solution that we're looking at here is strictly an engineer solution and not an artful solution in any way, and that is the root of the problem. And I don't know how else to put it, but, I think that a greater willingness to work with staff and to try to respond to some of the opportunities of the site rather than sticking to these formulaic approaches would really benefit and could come -- could bring the applicant to a solution solution. I mean, I could suggest some things, but it's. Unless there -- unless the willingness is there, it is a moot point. >> thank you, sir. Anything else? >> to follow. I agree with what you are saying exactly. But what I am hearing is that they're under a time constraint and they need an approved development plan to get to closing. Is that correct? Just a nod? That it is a timing issue. I don't know how to get around -- I don't know how to get around that, it sounds like there is a timing issue. They need to get to closing. It is a really difficult site. And -- I agree with everything you said, so I'm conflicted. It is a difficult site with russell cave and 75. We have someone willing to come in, a nice organization to come in, provide 208 affordable housing units. We don't have a problem with the buildings at all. It is the connectivity. I know the staff wants to work with them to get done. This timing issue makes it complicated for me. >> other thoughts? Anyone? Go ahead. >> just one quick thought. One concern that hasn't been discussed that has struck me is the possibility that this plan could make an unsafe community because of the sort of disjuncture and lack of connectivity. And opportunity for things to be going on that are not being seen and present opportunities for bad behaviors. >> ok. Yes, sir? >> I just -- I appreciate that there is a time constraint. I believe. But it's a situation, I think, as bruce has said, that it's not the easiest site, and to have been working on this for some time. There is meant to be a compromise somewhere in there, and I would think, if I were presenting this -- if I were the owner of this property and such, I would extend because it seems like it is close, but we're kind of being held in ransom that that ends up being the issue. You know, I really don't appreciate that situation, particularly. >> Mr. Wilson, you were reaching. >> well, I was going to cap my colleague's discussion here. You see I hear the word ass time as being an issue. I understand that. And from my perspective, if I had a major project like this on the line, I would be meeting more than five times. I would be meeting 24 hours a day because I would have that thing wrapped up before I got down here today. You know, it didn't seem the sense of urgency to get it done as opposed to just doing whatever. But -- >> Mr. Chairman? >> I'm sorry, sir. No. No, sir. I just texted the owner to see if we can get one more month, and he's agreed to do that. So if the chair is willing to postpone a month, we'll give it another shot. >> thank you, sir. I think I did ask that before we got to this point, and would appreciated it at that time. So we have two options. I guess we have still options that we can move to approve, disapprove or continue at this point. We would need to continue since we have gotten to this point and heard this information because I don't think any of us wants to go through it again. >> Mr. Chair? >> yes, sir. >> I would like to make a motion to continue this application plnmjdp-19-77. >> ok. >> one month. >> April 9, if I remember correctly from about four hours ago. >> ha-ha. >> we have a motion on the floor for a continuance. Do we have a second? >> graham pohl has seconded it. Discussion, Mr. Penn? >> I want to say, if we don't come back with some type of continuity, or some type of -- come back with the same development plan and there is no connection, continuity, whatever they're looking for there, it will be a pretty short hearing. >> any other discussion? >> I would -- I would echo that comment and I didn't have the opportunity a moment ago, I will say it now. You know, we have comprehensive plans, we have small area plans, and we always get into a discussion as to is that law, is it, you know, governance aspect of everything. And, you know, we often say that we try to go with that. And we should go with that wheever possible. And occasionally we do deviate from that for various reasons but we should have strong reasons when we do that. This is one of those situations, and at this point in time, I think a strong case has been made to support the comprehensive plan, which I think this does, it also we should support the small area plan, which we're being told right now it doesn't. And we need to work towards that aspect of it. One thing that was said that didn't get a follow-up for the most part, Ms. Castro did say, you know, they are planners and they have to look for the future. Right now, that connection to russell cave isn't there. But it May be in the future. So with that, I would encourage everybody to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and put your heads together and see what you can come up with. I do find it interesting that in all of this discussion, time is of an essence and now we have 30 days. I will commend you for that. We don't have the vote up on the screen. There it is. I would ask for a vote now. So we do have a continuance until April 9. That motion passes. Thank you, everyone. Good luck. We do have another issue or two. Fayette commonons, plan mjdb30-4, 3750 mall road, there is a revision on this, which is on a yellow sheet of paper before you as well. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. At the bottom of page 5 is the major development plan, 20-4 fayette commons, and as you are aware, that lovely yellow piece of paper are revised conditions for the revised plan. This -- let's say. Which direction am I looking here? here we go. This is the site here. Mall road, road j drive, nichols road, the theater, my big fingers, oops, wrong way. This is the aerial of the current site in the fayette commons area, adjacent to fayette mall. Again, the theater is to your right. Here is the amended development plan that is before you today. They are proposing a hotel in this location. With shared parking in this area. The access will be primarily off of mall road into this area, the primary issue that is addressed is this area here how it will function and function safely without impacting mall road. They moved their dumpsters to this location. They were up in here, that was not feasible from the staff's estimation. They have worked with us, with that staff is submitting an approval as you can see, subject to the conditions on the plan. They will have to address their parking in the site statistics. That is -- we have just been trying to express that to them. There are new requirements in this zone. They need to put those on the plan and demonstrate their compliance with such. Briefly add there was concern with this edge on road j drive. You can see extensive landscaping. And they have room to add trees and that sort of thing, which will create a much better street presence for this particular development. and again, I know it has been a long afternoon, so I'll be happy to answer any questions you May have for staff. >> questions for Mr. Martin? No? Applicant? Good evening, my name is jeremy pettitte, representing cbl. We're in agreement with the conditions staff set forth. Here to answer any questions. >> any questions? You might be catching us at a good time. >> I meant to say good evening, not a good afternoon, right? >> I caught that. >> any questions? No? Ok. Thank you, sir. >> very much. >> anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? Staff, you got anything else? You're comfortabe with everything? Ok. If there is no questions, motion Ms. Mundi. >> Mr. Chair, I move for approval of plnmjdb20-4 fayette commons, amended with the 12 conditions as set forth by staff. >> thank you, motion has been made for approval, seconded by Mr. Bell for plan mjdb20-4, fayette commons with the revised conditions totaling 12. That motion passes. We have one other item on the agenda, Mr. George mankel property. We have looked at this for a while. We have revisions. It is on a green sheet of paper before you. just like your shirt. >> you have noticed -- >> >> blue, green, lavender. Spring colors. >> he does have a green tie. >> green tie, yes, sir. >> lovely spring colors. >> here we are, out in athens, boons world road and cleveland through here. This is the site in question. This is the existing home. I want to tell you something. This gentleman has been here and just today with great patience. They have set through a lot and been through a lot on this plan. This plan has evolved. At one point, we brought this gentleman back full circle to where he began, all in an effort to construct a workshop behind his home, but it is b1. You know, there is a little bit of b1 there in the heart of athens. That b1 zone created challenges. Not the least of which is the need to build the structure to the setbacks required in the b1. They will be relocating their line, possibly, if need be, otherwise, they believe they can accommodate the existing sewer. That has been the real key to this, through the whole process that we have gone through, in order to get to where we are tday. You can see, there is a just a few conditions left, other than your standard signoffs. Staff is recommending approval of this plan, and I would add, again, Mr. Mankel has been patient with the process, played by the ruleses, followed the rules. In case you are curious, he builds custom guitars. so... If you want take a look some time and see what his art is like, I'm sure he would welcome that. Any questions for staff? I will be happy to answer? >> questions? Claim? >> one quick one. >> you have been quiet all day. [Laughter] >> don't poke the bear now! [Laughter] >> number 11. Document health department approval for shared septic system, if they don't approve it, it doesn't happen, right? >> that is true. They have that approval. >> thank you. >> ok. So any other questions? >> Mr. Chair? >> yes, sir. >> I would like to -- >> hold on? Do you have a question? >> no. >> applicant, need to add anything? >> [Off mic] >> go to the microphone. >> as tom said I have. >> your name, sir. >> george whitehead mankel the third. Property owner, petitioner. >> I have been patient 11 months, taken his advice, planning, and we here stand trying to get my building built. I thank you for following all the rules that you are supposed to do. I have done the same thing. I respect your patience because what I sat through this afternoon would drive me up a wall. >> the inefficient from this side to you all blowses me away, that is my personal opinion. I have nothing else to say other than thank you for your cooperation, thank you for the role that you play, the stuff you put up with for people trying to just do anything. I have now feel I have rewritten history, in the quote last but - not least. I am last today I think I am the least. I say that out of respect. I want to put a building 28 feet center of the line like I'm - supposed to. Let me do it, please. >> Mr. Penn? >> I was going to comment that if they allowed outlighthouses we could have fixed this a long time ago. >> you know what, two properties over there was one. >> [Laughter] >> tmi, tmi. >> and there are nice trees that work well. >> I understand. >> make a deposit if you would like to. >> thank you, Mr. Mankel, justin, you dare add anything? >> I do not. >> thank you, sir. Mr. Bell? >> Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of plmmjdp20-8, Mr. George mankel property with the 11 conditions as so noted. >> thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Mundi for approval, plan mjdb20-8, george mankel property with the revised 11 conditions. please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks, thank you for your patience. No audience items, it doesn't look like. Commission items? Yes? >> oh, gosh! Thank you, Mr. Vice chair. We do have a performance and bonds letter of credit, which is on cran granicus, if anyone wants to look at it. Otherwise, I need a motion for approval. >> so moved. >> second. >> motion is moved and seconded for the called of bonds. Please vote, if it comes up on the screen. Otherwise -- oh, here it comes. >> I made the motion. >> Mr. Wilson. >> Mr. Wilson. >> sounds good. >> I second. >> get 'er done. >> thank you, once again, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Duncan. >> thank you, Mr. Chair, if I could have your attention for a few more minutes. You know the state of the world, state of our country right now things are very much in flux about public meetings and get-togethers. At this time, we're still scheduled for our planning commission work session next thursday. We have scheduled a guest to make a horse country presentation to us and we also have staff items to bring to you. However, we will be monitoring what the mayor and others say about the need for public meetings, so at this time, I recommend unless you all want to take preemptive action that we leave the schedule as status quo, however, with the option if the government does close for any reason or we get other guidance that we is certainly communicate that to you all. That would also go for the zoning hearing. That is a little more serious. It is one thing to cans a work session and another for a zoning hearing. If it gets to that point, we will provide you all more guidance as well. >> I would offer that we continue on taking direction from our mayor. And if they see a need to suspend us, then so be it. Otherwise, let each individual act responsibly and accordingly as needed for their own sake. >> Mr. Chair? >> yes. >> the governor just announced that he's -- school is going to close for two weeks starting monday. >> ok. >> so I know -- I'm only one -- maybe bruce got little ones. >> that means. >> I will be home. I will warn you now. >> we can put in a day care center. >> I can put them back there. >> ok. >> anybody got teenagers that can come back. >> with that said, any other comments? yes, sir? >> only thing I would like to say is the horse country presentation is an update from five years ago, and it is really truly exciting the progress that has been made, and fully respect the concern for one's health, but it is not just -- I would love -- we'd love for y'all to hear from ann hardy on the process. >> hopefully we will continue next week. If not, we will -- if not, we'll invite them back accordingly. So anything else from anyone? If not, I appreciate everyone's patience today. I'll declare this meeting adjourned.