# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - January 14, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 14, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5273 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5273?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-01-14 - **Last revised**: January 14, 2021 - **Length**: 18,926 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on January 14, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. via video teleconference, with Larry Forester presiding. The commission considered 11 agenda items, took 12 motions and votes, and heard 2 public comments during the meeting. The commission approved four items: the Approval of Minutes, the Lexington Mall Property (Planet Fitness Lexington Richmond Road), the Headley, Niven & Vance Property (Chick-fil-A), and the Hamburg East, Tract 4, Lot 1 (Belhurst) project. The Coldstream Research Campus was also approved. Six agenda items were postponed, including the Lexington Mall Property Lot 6-A, Griffin Gate Office Park, Spring Lake, Gess Property Unit 8 Phase 3, Haynes Brothers Properties LLC, and Ball Homes Property & Lillian Hunt (Speedway). ## Attendance **Present:** Ivy Barksdale, Headley Bell, Larry Forester, Janice Meyer, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Graham Pohl, and Bill Wilson **Absent:** Zach Davis, Anthony de Movellan, and Bruce Nicol **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:12:10] The minutes from December 17, 2020 were approved unanimously. Motion by Headley Bell, seconded by Janice Meyer. Vote: 8-0. **Lexington Mall Property, Lot 6-A (PLN-MJDP-20-00029)** [timestamp: 0:17:02] Postponed to February 11, 2021. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Janice Meyer. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Griffin Gate Office Park (PLN-MJDP-20-00057)** [timestamp: 0:20:53] Postponed to February 11, 2021. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Spring Lake (PLN-MJDP-20-00067)** [timestamp: 0:18:35] Postponed to March 11, 2021. Motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Gess Property, Unit 8, Phase 3 (PLN-MJDP-20-00078)** [timestamp: 0:19:39] Postponed to March 11, 2021. Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Frank Penn. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC (PLN-MJDP-20-00080)** [timestamp: 0:15:57] Postponed to March 11, 2021. Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bill Wilson. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Lexington Mall Property—Planet Fitness Lexington Richmond Road (PLN-MJDP-20-00050)** [timestamp: 0:33:28] Approved with 13 conditions as listed in the revised staff recommendation. Motion by Headley Bell, seconded by Frank Penn. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Headley, Niven & Vance Property—Chick-fil-A (PLN-MJDP-20-00054)** [timestamp: 0:44:13] Approved with 12 conditions as listed in the revised staff recommendation. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Headley Bell. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Ball Homes Property & Lillian Hunt—Speedway (PLN-MJDP-20-00076)** [timestamp: 1:59:40] Continued to February 11, 2021. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Graham Pohl. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Hamburg East, Tract 4, Lot 1—Belhurst (PLN-MJDP-20-00081)** [timestamp: 2:28:07] Approved with 15 conditions as presented by staff. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **EAMP Compliance Statement for Hamburg East, Tract 4, Lot 1** [timestamp: 2:28:41] Approved. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Bill Wilson. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). **Coldstream Research Campus Development Plan Amendment—Condition 15 (PLN-MJDP-20-00053)** [timestamp: 2:43:49] Approved. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Bill Wilson. Vote: 8-0 (unanimous). All votes were unanimous with eight members voting in favor: Ivy Barksdale, Headley Bell, Larry Forester, Janice Meyer, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Graham Pohl, and Bill Wilson. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the council regarding the proposed Speedway development. **Paula Singer** [timestamp: 1:00:23] expressed opposition to the development, citing concerns about the number of gas stations already present in the area and the potential impact on the community. **Jennifer Reynolds** [timestamp: 1:09:53] also raised concerns about the Speedway development, emphasizing the need for affordable housing and community-oriented development as priorities for the area. ## Contested Items **Speedway Development Plan** The proposed Speedway development plan generated significant opposition during the meeting. Community members and council members raised concerns about the project, specifically regarding the number of gas stations included in the development and the potential displacement of residents. The disagreement centered on whether the development plan adequately addressed community needs and protected existing residents from being forced to relocate. The opposition reflected broader concerns about how the development would impact the neighborhood's character and stability. No outcome regarding the resolution of these concerns is documented in the available meeting materials. ## Approval of Minutes The commission reviewed and approved the minutes from the December 17, 2020 meeting. [timestamp: 00:12:10] Larry Forester led the discussion on this agenda item. The minutes were approved without noted objections or concerns. ## Lexington Mall Property, Lot 6-A **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00029 The commission discussed the development plan for Lexington Mall Property, Lot 6-A during this meeting. [timestamp: 0:17:02] Rory Kahly was the key speaker on this agenda item. The commission determined that the development plan required postponement to allow additional time for resolving outstanding discussion items that had been raised during the review process. **Outcome:** The item was postponed. ## Griffin Gate Office Park The commission discussed the Griffin Gate Office Park development plan, identified as PLN-MJDP-20-00057. [timestamp: 20:53] Scott Southall presented on this agenda item. The commission deliberated on the proposed development, with discussion focusing on parking and use issues that required additional time to resolve. The commission voted to postpone the Griffin Gate Office Park development plan to allow for further work on these outstanding concerns before proceeding with approval or additional consideration. ## Spring Lake The commission discussed the Spring Lake development plan, identified as PLN-MJDP-20-00067. [timestamp: 0:18:35] Nick Nicholson was the key speaker on this agenda item. The commission considered postponing the development plan to allow additional time for a cemetery study to be completed. The agenda item was ultimately postponed, deferring further action on the Spring Lake development plan. ## Gess Property, Unit 8, Phase 3 **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00078 The commission discussed the Gess Property, Unit 8, Phase 3 development plan [timestamp: 0:19:39]. Nick Nicholson was the key speaker on this agenda item. The primary focus of the discussion centered on open space requirements for the project. The commission determined that open space issues needed to be resolved before the project could move forward. **Outcome:** The item was postponed to allow time to address the open space requirement concerns. ## Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00080 The commission discussed the development plan for Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC during this meeting. [timestamp: 00:15:57] **Key Speaker:** Matt Carter **Discussion:** The commission considered postponing the Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC development plan to allow additional time for potential Board of Adjustment action on the matter. **Outcome:** The agenda item was postponed. ## Lexington Mall Property (Planet Fitness Lexington Richmond Road) **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00050 The commission discussed and approved a development plan for Planet Fitness at Lexington Mall on Richmond Road [timestamp: 0:33:28]. **Key Speakers** Cheryl Gallt and Todd Reyling presented and discussed the project with the commission. **Discussion and Conditions** The commission reviewed the development plan and identified conditions necessary for approval. The discussion focused on two primary areas: - **Pedestrian access:** The commission raised concerns regarding pedestrian access to and from the proposed Planet Fitness location within the Lexington Mall property. - **Easement release:** The commission addressed the release of an easement as part of the development approval process. **Outcome** The commission approved the development plan for Planet Fitness at Lexington Mall, contingent upon the applicant meeting the specified conditions related to pedestrian access and easement release. ## Headley, Niven & Vance Property (Chick-fil-A) **Project Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00054 The commission discussed and approved the development plan for a Chick-fil-A restaurant on the Headley, Niven & Vance property [timestamp: 0:44:13]. **Key Participants** Tom Martin and John Wiley were the primary speakers during this discussion. **Outcome** The commission approved the development plan with conditions related to parking and access requirements. ## Ball Homes Property & Lillian Hunt (Speedway) **Case Number:** PLN-MJDP-20-00076 The commission discussed the Speedway development plan during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:59:40]. Key speakers included Tom Martin and Rob Sweet. The discussion centered on the proposed development and its potential impacts on the community. Concerns were raised regarding community impact and the displacement of residents as a result of the project. These issues prompted substantive debate among commission members about the implications of moving forward with the development as presented. **Outcome:** The commission voted to postpone the item, continuing it for further revision. This decision allowed the applicant and staff additional time to address the concerns raised during the discussion before the item returns for future consideration. ## Hamburg East, Tract 4, Lot 1 (Belhurst) **Project Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00081 The commission discussed and approved the development plan for Hamburg East, Tract 4, Lot 1 (Belhurst) during this agenda item [timestamp: 2:28:07]. **Key Speakers** Tom Martin and Nick Nicholson led the discussion on this project. **Outcome** The commission approved the development plan with conditions. The approval required compliance with specific requirements related to greenway inclusion and adherence to the Expansion Area Master Plan. ## Coldstream Research Campus **Project Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00053 The commission discussed and approved an amendment to the Coldstream Research Campus development plan. [timestamp: 2:43:49] **Key Speakers:** - Tracy Wade - Mike Wollum **Discussion and Outcome:** The primary matter under consideration was an amendment allowing an access drive encroachment into the scenic easement for the Coldstream Research Campus project. The commission reviewed this modification to the existing development plan and voted to approve the amendment, permitting the requested encroachment. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from December 17, 2020 - **PLN-MJDP-20-00029** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Lexington Mall Property, Lot 6-A to February 11, 2021 - **PLN-MJDP-20-00057** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Griffin Gate Office Park to February 11, 2021 - **PLN-MJDP-20-00067** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Spring Lake to March 11, 2021 - **PLN-MJDP-20-00078** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Gess Property, Unit 8, Phase 3 to March 11, 2021 - **PLN-MJDP-20-00080** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC to March 11, 2021 - **PLN-MJDP-20-00050** — passed (8-0): Approval of Lexington Mall Property (Planet Fitness Lexington Richmond Road) with conditions - **PLN-MJDP-20-00054** — passed (8-0): Approval of Headley, Niven & Vance Property (Chick-fil-A) with conditions - **PLN-MJDP-20-00076** — postponed (8-0): Continuance of Ball Homes Property & Lillian Hunt (Speedway) to February 11, 2021 - **PLN-MJDP-20-00081** — passed (8-0): Approval of Hamburg East, Tract 4, Lot 1 (Belhurst) with conditions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of EAMP compliance statement for Hamburg East, Tract 4, Lot 1 - **PLN-MJDP-20-00053** — passed (8-0): Amendment to Coldstream Research Campus development plan, Condition 15 --- ## Full transcript It had to be you It had to be you. I wandered around and finally found the somebody who could make me be true. Could make me be blue. Or even be glad just to be sad. Thinking of you. Some others I've seen. Might never be mean, might never be cross or try to be boss, but they wouldn't do. For nobody else gave me a thrill. With all your faults, I love you still. It had to be you, wonderful you. It had to be you. . Thank you. and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary location for the meeting. Next on the agenda item is item two. We have an approval of minutes. Those minutes are from December 17, 2020. So the chair is opening for a motion for the approval of minutes or any changes to those minutes. Sorry. I think we're still screen sharing. Am I screen sharing? Yeah, we are. Yeah, I can't see any of the panelists. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I love to turn it. Chairman, if I may. Yes, sir. Move for approval of the minutes. Okay, we have an approval of the December 17th, 2020 minutes. Do we have a second to that motion? Second, Ms. Meyer. Thank you. Any discussion? I'm seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passed. Thank you. Next up, I'll probably skip here a little bit. We do have, we need to get an approval for the performance bonds and letters of credit. I'd like to skip the agenda there and get those first before we get dovetailed into the actual agenda item. So the floor is open for a motion for an approval of the performance bonds and letter of credit. Okay, Mr. Poe. I move to approve the performance bonds and letters credit. Item C on the agenda. Thank you. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion to that motion? Not seeing any. Please raise your hand as voting for aye. Any opposed? Oh, Ivy, that's you four. Okay. Okay. All right. unanimous. Thank you. Yes, I raised my hand. All right. Okay. So we'll go back to page one. Postponements and or withdrawals. I know we have several postponements here today, so definitely if we can get some clarifications or some reasonings to those postponements, that would be great. I don't want to keep kicking a can down the road. Let's see what's going on. So open the floor up. any postponements or withdrawals? We do have a few hands raised there, Donna, if you could switch over to our attendee list. You have to scroll up to the top of the list up there. Okay, so Mr. Carter. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. It's Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn in your agenda to page six, item J, PLN MJDP 20-00080 Haynes Brothers property. It's located at 840 Angliana Avenue. I'd like to request a two-month postponement to your March 11th hearing. The reason is we've got several items that we need to get some resolution on before we can move forward. One of those may require a board of adjustment action, and we would like to get that resolved before we take this before you again. So we're asking for a March 11th new hearing date. All right. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Does any commission member have any questions for Mr. Carter? If not, the floor is open for a motion for a two-month postponement. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Mr. Chair, move postponement until March 11th for PLN MJDP 2080. Haynes Brothers Properties. Second. Thank you. We got a second by Mr. Wilson. Any discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Postponements approved. Unanimous. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Next up, we have Al and Rory from EA Partners. Good afternoon. On page two, under your development plans, item A, major development plan 20-29, Lexington Mall property, lot 6A, we request a one-month postponement to the February 11th. The owner is still having some issues resolving the discussion items. Okay. Thank you. Does any commission members have any further discussion for the applicant for a one-month postponement for February 11th? Not seeing any. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move that we postpone Plan MJDP 20-29 Lexington Mall property, lot 6A, until February 11th. Thank you. I have a second by Ms. Meyer. Any discussion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Postponements approved for one month. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. So is Mr. Nicholson is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two postponements for you today. The first is on page four of your agenda, item E, the NJDP 20-67 Spring Lake. We are still in the process of completing the cemetery study on there. And as such, we're going to have to change the development plan a little bit. We're requesting a two-month post-pandemic to the March 11th Planning Commission meeting for the Spring Lake development plan. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen. Any discussion? Seeing none. The floor is open for a motion for a two-month postponement for the March 11th meeting. Mr. Pohl? Move to postpone PLN MJDP 2067 Spring Lake to March 11th. Two-month postponement. Thank you. Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Two-month postponement. is approved. Thank you and I also have another postponement it is on let's see I believe it's on basically page five and six of your all's agenda item H the guest property MJDP 20-78. I would also like to request a two-month postponement for that one. We are working with planning staff with regards to the open space kind of calculation. I'm trying to dig back through the archives to find some original exhibits from when this got zoned back in 96 in order to figure out where this one is going. Thank you, Ms. Nicholson. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. move postponement until March 11th for PLNMJDP 2078 just property. Second. I think we got a second by Mr. Penn. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion to approve. Postponement. Thank you, Ms. Nicholson. Ready. we do have a consent agenda so i would have staff want to touch on two items here yes good afternoon chairman forrester we do have two items that cure on our consent excuse me excuse me hold on hi can you see me and hear me We have another postponement item for you. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page three of your agenda, at the bottom, item D, this is Major Development Plan 20-57, Griffin Gate Office Park. We have received verbal and written requests for a one-month postponement on that plan. the applicant has yet to resolve his parking and use issues under the ordinance on this property. Thank you. Do we have any discussions to this one month postponement? Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement to one month postponement for PLNMJDP 2057 October, February 11th, Beatty. Thank you. And seconded by Ms. Plumlee. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion approved unanimously. Thank you. Sorry about that, Tom. Now, I think we can move all over to the consent agenda unless we have any more postponements. Okay. So, Chairman Forster, we do have two items that appear on our consent agenda for today. So I'll read those and then see if there's anyone present in the audience or a petitioner or one of the committee commission members would like to have any of these items heard with a full presentation. The first item appears on page five of your regular agenda. It is item G, PLN MJDP 20-77, Lexmark International Corporation. This property is located at 1180 Newtown Pike, or a portion of, and 725 West New Circle Road. The second item appears on page six, and it's item I, PLN MJDP 20-79, First Stonewall Shopping Center. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 3101 Clays Mill Road. So both of these items have been recommended for approval by the subdivision committee and the applicants or petitioners are in agreement with the conditions on the agenda. We'd ask if there's anyone present today in the audience or any petitioners who'd like to have either of these two items removed from the consent agenda for further discussion. I'm not seeing any hands. Okay, so as a commission, the floor is open for an approval for the consent agenda as presented by staff. I can't see anybody else. Mr. Wilson? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the consent agenda. The two items on the consent agenda is approved by staff, as presented by staff. Thank you. Second. We got a second by Mr. Penn. Yeah. One second, because I'm not able to see everyone. Now I can. Can they remove that, whatever it is that they can? There you go. Thank you. Yeah, I was only able to see like four of you. Frank Hay was at the top, so that wasn't a good look. No, it's not. It is what it is. If people are there, don't understand. No, no. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passed for the consent agenda. Thank you. Now back to staff. Ms. Galt, I believe, has our first case that appears on page two of the agenda. Here we go. This is MJDP 20-50 Lexington Mall property, Planet Fitness, Lexington Richmond Road. They have revised conditions, so you should see a revised staff report. Google Drive on this one. The property is located at the corner of Richmond Road and New Circle Road where the Home Depot is located. Back behind it is the proposed Planet Fitness. I was going to say this Richmond right yeah and so then you have the drive that comes up through the middle of the property to be able to access the planet fitness or comes up and circles around to the top to New Circle Road back here with the revised conditions you can see they did a lot of cleanup for us this being B6P property they had to submit a multiple mobile accommodation exhibit with this. They have it drawn here. We'd like to see maybe another exhibit so that we can keep it in the folder just of the multimodal plan. And then the other condition on the rear side of the report is resolve timing of easement release. There are several large easements that are located within this property and under the proposed building and so my understanding is that this time they're trying to work with the process of getting the easements released and with that i'll open it to the committee if there's any other questions or comments any commission members have any questions for staff yes i do larry okay mr penn uh talk about the cross-access movement, the pedestrian circulation. Do you want a way to develop a plan to talk about that? This is the final development plan. Okay. The cross-access. Yes, and the pedestrian. The pedestrian looks to me like that's the tough part there. Right. They have some crosswalks through here that connect to a proposed sidewalk on the front of their property, which then comes down and connects over to the sidewalk on the church side of the property, which then loops around to a sidewalk back here in front of the senior center where a bus stop is located. the sidewalk also from their property circles up and around and goes up to new circle road or when they cross over the drive the center drive there's a sidewalk on the church side that will take you all the way down and it'll take you here's another crosswalk here take you all the way down to richmond road so they have met their pedestrian crossing crosswalks and sidewalks as required thank you Do we have any further questions? Mr. Pohl? I guess are all of the concerns of the subdivision committee now resolved in the staff's view? Yes. I believe we've worked with them and we've worked through several of these conditions. They've made the changes needed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We'll move over to the applicant. If we could ask the applicant to raise their hand, we will promote you to a panelist. Thank you, Todd. Good afternoon. Mr. Reiling, you've been promoted to a panelist and you can start your audio and video at this time. It is Mr. Riling is it possible that you've also called in for us today we have two phone callers this afternoon that we can allow to speak. Phone number 312-459-7174. Yeah, unmute yourself if you could. Yeah, you can ask him that. We'll also bring in our other phone caller. Phone caller from number 618-530-1694. Are we allowed to speak? Can you guys hear me now? I'm sorry. Yes. Yes, this is Todd Riley and I apologize you guys. Yeah, I don't have a full access. I guess I have to do it through the phone. I apologize. Thank you. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Yes, I believe, like I said, we work back and forth with staff, you know, on this project regarding the few issues they have. I guess, you know, I think one through 11 is just, you know, things will work after, you know, we do get planning commission approval. Item 12, I was able to talk to Scott Peterson this morning regarding that. He did want us to show for the multi-mogul, we need to show a bike rack up in the front of our, and we normally provide these for Planet Fitness. I shouldn't say every plan of business we do, but majority of them we do provide. So we'll actually provide a bike rack up front in the front of the building that will meet city code. And that will be accessed through the multi-mobile that is actually shown on the site plan. And then as far as items, I think it was item 13, if I'm not mistaken now, regarding the timing of the release of the easements. We've actually hired a local attorney. You guys are, I'm sure, well aware of Richard Murphy. So he will be working with us to get this 25-foot utility easement released. And we are currently working with the Division of Water and also Kentucky American Water regarding this water line that currently goes through there. If they want it to be abandoned in place or if they want it relocated. So we are currently working with them as well. So other than that, I don't really have anything else. Thank you. Thank you, guys. All right. Does any commission members have any statements or comments for the applicant? Not seeing any. Do we have anyone on the call that would like to speak on behalf of this application, either for or against? You can do so by raising your hand. Not seeing anything. So we'll bring this back to the commission and the floor is open for a motion. okay mr bell yes sir mr chair um i move for approval of pln mjdp 2050 lexington mall property with the 13 conditions as as noted thank you we have a motion second to that motion Second. Seconded by Mr. Penn. Any further discussion? I'm seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, staff, too, for bringing back with the 12 conditions. That's pretty awesome. Thank you. Okay. All right. Okay, so next up, we're on page three, agenda item C, PLN, MJD, P, dash 20, dash 54. members of the committee planning commission pardon me members of the planning commission mr chairman the item is major development plan dash 20 dash 54 it is the heedley living and vance property lots one two and three is being proposed for a chick-fil-a that you can see we have revised conditions for you as well they're on a lovely pink piece of paper that matches Frank's shirt. The proposal that you see before you is again for a Chick-fil-A drive-thru restaurant in this location. You can see the associated parking. These are the drive-thrus. It's a dual drive-thru lane with an ordering point and a pickup point in this location. Here is the existing access to the service road parallel to New Circle Road. This is the intersection with Russell K. That's where we're located. Russell K. Road and West New Circle Road. There is a gas station. There's one been here for many, many years in this location. Now, this plan was postponed for, I believe, a couple of months to address the issue with this area in the rear of the plan. There is a creek back in here as well as a park and Irving County Park back in this location. what's really interesting to note and i want to bring to the planning commission's attention is that there is data that indicates that this was an intermittent stream local data that has been gathered now for several years in response to the consent decree where we're measuring water quality and their consultants are measuring water flow they have determined that this is not an intermittent stream, that it has flow, year-round flow. What that does is it impacts the measurement of the required vegetative buffer, and therefore it affected significantly the impact of the vegetative buffer in this area on the development. the applicant has revised the plan that you see before you and they basically pulled it this way towards new circle road they moved their parking down their building got smaller and in addition to a smaller building and a revision to the parking you may recall that staff was concerned about over parking well they have reduced the parking on this site they reduced it by, I believe, 29 spaces. They're currently still proposing 70 spaces that you can see, all in this area and in this parking lot back in here. The square footage of the building is 4,450 square feet. It originally was over 5,000 square feet on their original plan. Now, another issue is when this plan was originally amended some years ago, it was a much more intense development. It had a large retail and restaurant proposed in this area. It had a fast food restaurant proposed in this area near Russell Cave Road. And there was a huge discussion on this right in, right out. And it was ultimately approved and they wished to maintain it and utilize it on this plan. But one of the conditions was that an access point to this gas station was to be closed. And that was agreed upon on the previous plan. They have agreed with it on this plan. And again, that reduces areas of conflict along Russell Cave Road near the intersection and in turn allows this right in, right out. It will be subject to District 7 approval as well. And as you all know, we talk about write-ins, write-outs quite a bit. It is necessary to have good median controls for them to function. And that will be an aspect of the approval. Again, the applicant has worked, I will say, very diligently to address these issues in the back with the vegetating buffer. And with that, again, on your revised staff report, staff is recommending approval with only a couple of cleanup items to remain. And that is to remove a 15-foot setback they show back in here. It is not necessary. And it may be that what it actually was intended to do is meet number 12 on your revised conditions, which is to add the 15-foot sanitary sewer easement. There is an easement in this area for the sanitary sewer. So again, staff is prepared to, at this time, to recommend approval of this revised plan. And I would like to add one thing very briefly. The owner of this property, you all that have worked with me and known me for a long time know that I like names and I like history. this property is known as the katherine dalton ttee naomi estel vance residual generation skipping exempt trust i think the lawyers in the audience may know what that means as may someone who has enough assets if they have to create a skipping exempt trust i just find that incredibly interesting and wanted to share it with you and with that i'll turn it over to you for any questions you may have Thank you, John. I've got one. Mr. Penn? Yes, sir. I want to point out that our esteemed chairman looked down off the billboard on this property for a long time, and I'm sure he had a lot to do with getting this cleaned up. The other thing is that on the access off Russell Cave Road, uh is highway is district number seven going to put a barrier there where you can't make a left turn off russell cave into that uh access or is it going to be because there's two lanes turn off new circle on the russell cave if if you close the one at the at the gas station which certainly will help then what's to prevent somebody from turning left and blocking that to come across But that's an excellent question, Mr. Penn. And I'm not aware of the exact details that District 7 is considering at this time. I know there are options. One is that they have become, out of the word, they do favorably the flag ballers. And we're seeing more and more of those flag ballers. They're very easy to install, very quick and easy to install, and are relatively effective. The other item that they will approve is a larger pork chop in the right in right out itself. And it'll be designed and it will greatly inhibit those turns. It'll bust your tire if you're not careful. So that's why they use those. Okay, so something will be done there. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. There will be something done to help control that movement. Thank you. Thank you. Good question. Any further questions for Tom? Not seeing any. OK, applicant? Mr. Wiley has been added. Mr. Wiley? Good afternoon. Thank you, Tom, for all that detailed information on the project. Yes, Chick-fil-A worked rather hard to remain on this site, even though we have the more restrictive 50-foot vegetative buffer at the rear yard there. We know that all the conditions that are in the revised staff report that was sent out and we accept all those. I think there's 12 of them there, including the 15-foot sanitary sewer easement over that existing line back there. I guess, is there any other questions that Tom was not able to answer? I'm not seeing any right now Mr. Wiley thank you okay are there anyone that's on this phone call or excuse me Zoom call that would like to speak on behalf or against this particular agenda item you can do so by raising your hand I'm not seeing any I'll bring it back to the commission so the floor is open for further discussion Mr. Chairman Yes sir If there's no further discussion I'd like to thank the applicant for working on this I know it's been a tough one but this is what the subdivision committee would like to do was to get as much of these kind of things ironed out and these were not easy to iron out and I appreciate his effort and if you're ready for a motion I'll be ready to give you one I believe so I see anyone has a question or comment The floor is open, Mr. Penn. I move for approval of PLN-MJDP 2054 with revised staff's recommendation of 12 conditions. Okay, thank you. We have a motion. We have a second to that motion. Second. Mr. Dell, thank you. Any further discussion? I'm not seeing any. Please raise your hand in voting in favor of this motion. Thank you. Motion approved unanimously. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. So that will put us on page four. Agenda item F, PLN, MJBP-20-76, Ball Home Property and Lillian Hunt. Staff? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's see. There it is. We've got to move on from that one. Yes, ma'am. Click on that. All right. That's our one. Yes, sir, I know. I'm trying to advance it. Oh, I wasn't using my mouse. Oh, too far. How do I go back? Keep going. Oh, keep going. Oh, there we are. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Members of the Planning Commission, as your chairman stated, this is, in fact, Major Development Plan 20-76 of Ball Homes Property and Lillian Hunt property. It is a proposal to put a speedway in this location. It is at the corner of Ursells Road and Red Mile Road, as you can see in this location. It is the former site right here on the immediate corner of a famous recipe. Currently on this property, there is a residential building. The property is zoned B1. The entire property is zoned B1. And I know people see the name Ball Homes and they go, well, Ball Homes is a residential developer. Well, many, many years ago, they purchased this property as well as other property across the street where you're all aware there's apartments and that sort of thing. And then it's important to note that this property was rezoned for B1 on the corner back in the 60s. And then this property, the Illinois Hunt property, was rezoned to be B1 in 1970s. And it is this property, this long rectangular piece of property that had a development plan. And that is the only reason that the Planning Commission has a development plan to review today. Because had they been able to utilize the existing corner lot, they wouldn't need your approval. There would be no development plan. They would have gone straight to permitting and just had to meet the conditions of the B1 zoning. And that's an important item here because initially when this plan was filed, it did not meet the setbacks required in the B-1. And the applicant had considered going to the BOA to seek relief from those setbacks. As you all know, the B-1 setbacks are billed too. It's 10 to 20. It's a billed too line. And we've had other requests in the past with these types of businesses to try to address that setback because it can present challenges for a use that is, of course, very auto-centric. Now, they are proposing the convenience store in this location. Here are their pumps with the canopy. They meet the setback on this revised plan along this part of the plan. And this is a structure, and it's been our staff's interpretation that this meets the setback requirement. This has been consistent with other decisions that have been made to meet the B-1 setback requirements. They revised the plan to do so. That's why you are seeing it before you today. There is detention proposed in this area. There is detention proposed in this area. Here are their fuel pumps, I mean tanks, pardon me. They initially on the previous plan that the committee saw were over in this area. They have revised the plan and you can see they're placed here. Now, this is a 5,000 plus just a little over 5,000 square foot convenience store. They are providing 26 parking spaces, both in front of the store and in this area. This is a green space area. They're not proposing to utilize this at all. Now, one very positive aspect of that is they are going to terminate this street, this stub street. It's been here for many, many years in a compliant Hammerhead cul-de-sac, which is obviously a positive conclusion to that particular issue. You can see their access points. This one off of Red Mile Road is as far back as it can get from the intersection at their property line. They are moving the current access point, which is approximately in this area, back again to this location here. You can see this, too, will be a right in, right out onto Vercels Road. there will be flag bollards placed to control this access by District 7. In addition, the applicant has agreed to add a turn lane on Red Mile Road. Tremendous improvement from staff's perspective. In addition to the turn lane, they're adding eight-foot sidewalks. So they are going to enhance the pedestrian experience. And of course, as you all know, it's a tremendous concern to staff. is accommodating pedestrians and pedestrian facilities, pedestrian infrastructure. Versailles Road has been designated for a project by District 7, and it will be contained completely within the right-of-way once that project does happen. And again, they are adding an eight-foot sidewalk along this frontage as well. Now, there was one issue with there's an existing bus stop in this location. That will have to be moved to LexTrans approval because as you can see, buses would be stopping out in the right-of-way. There's no pullover. They would be blocking this access point and they do not want to be in intersections. That goes against their standards for safety reasons. So that will have to be resolved. Potentially it could be moved back to west, potentially it could go away. That is something that will have to be resolved with LexTran. Now, staff has received communications from a neighbor that represents the neighborhood, and they are concerned about this development. And that should be made available to you in your packet of materials on the Google Drive. One of their concerns is that they oppose the development, they oppose the gas station. Well, staff would like again to reemphasize this is zoned B1 and has been for many, many years. And a convenience store with gas is a legal use in the B1 and has been again for many, many years. This is a perfectly legal use for private property. Now, again, they have to meet the requirements of the ordinance, which this revised plan has done so. as they develop the property, as you all are aware, when they design their stormwater facilities and when they address other physical issues on the site, they will have to meet our stormwater and our engineering manuals. They'll have to meet all those requirements. So again, I just wanna emphasize that with the state, although, I mean, with the commission, staff is aware, we understand the neighborhood's concerns, But again, this is a legal use in the property. Now, there's one item staff would like to bring to your attention. The existing residential structure. We're not aware at this time that there's any low income in households in this structure. However, as you all are aware, a few years ago, staff took to you a concern about displacement of low income residents. You all agreed with that concern, and it is now a requirement of our application. It's not actual in the ordinance, but we require this information to be provided to you if they are displacing any low-income residents. And staff would recommend that although we believe this plan could be approved and certified, that they should document efforts to assist any low income residents in this building. And by assist, we mean referring them to appropriate social service agencies and others that could help them find a new place to live. We would add that currently, as you all are aware, with COVID and the pandemic, there are restrictions on evictions. I believe they may have expired as of January. They may be reinstituted. Again, we would hope that they would be sensitive to that and would work with these residents, give them ample notice when they're going to have to vacate this problem. We wanted to bring that to your attention. although you don't see a condition recommended. We certainly believe that they could document their efforts to staff prior to the issuance of a zoning compliance permit. So that is, we think, a viable approach to this particular project. So again, I would draw your attention back to the revised report that you have. You can see where they have worked as well, very diligently and to address staff's concerns very diligently. They have worked with staff and they've done frankly a pretty good job we believe in addressing those concerns and enhancing this site and its functionality. So with that as I stated we are recommending approval of this plan. They have a few cleanup items that you can see. That was again the transit stop that I mentioned in this location. Access to Bracel's Road, again, that's pretty basic, but we like to keep that condition on there so that we're all in agreement as to how we're going to control that right in, right out. And then there's a temporary access easement that they had to deal with, and this took them a little bit by surprise, you may recall, when we discussed it at committee. they are going to be working with saying to if they can remove that easement it is an easement that exists all up and down this area of Red Mile Road and it was intended to allow the state to expand Red Mile Road which they did further to the oh I suppose south but had not done as much work in this area so but it still exists that easement does they're going to have to resolve that conflict they are very much aware of that With that, I'll be happy to turn over to the Planning Commission for any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? My tech reminded me to stop share. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Okay, Tom, I'm not seeing any questions at the moment. So we'll move over to the applicant. So, Mr. Sweet, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Daffron, yes, please start your videos if you'd like. Hey, everybody. Good afternoon. Members of the Planning Commission. How are you doing today? My name is Rob. I'm with McRide Dale Clarion. I've got David Daffron here as well as Eric Boyd. He's with CESO. He's our project engineer. I want to thank Tom for helping us out and giving us the guidance. We agreed all those conditions, same with the condition of documenting any of the tenants that we may need to relocate, but looking at their leases, it appears that they all do not meet the requirements of the 40%, but we can obviously go through and assist, and we are sensitive to the fact that we are in an unusual situation in a pandemic with trying to relocate these tenants. We agree with all these conditions. We feel that the improvements, especially that turn lane onto Red Mile Road will eventually act as a widening point or gateway point for the widening. It is a huge thing for this project. We have worked very hard and feel this is a good project moving forward and we're happy to answer questions as necessary. Thank you Mr. Sweet. Mr. Penn. Yes sir Mr. Sweet I was involved with a group of people that bought the property across Red Mile Road is now the office of Fayette County Farm Bureau and we have a lot of easements on that side of the road and on your side of the road what are you all doing about the widening of Red Mile Road there there has to be an easement there somewhere in order to widen that intersection and I don't see it on the on the plan so we're actually going to dedicate uh some property at the corner and then it's got a fairly large right away out there right now whereas we're going to do that do the widening um and then we're going to go back to transportation to our understanding it's a temporary easement and by doing the widening on our section of red mile this gives us the ability to potentially reduce that temporary easement for the widening and in fact if need be our group can schedule our construction so we you know kind of miss one another as widening our widening improvements are taking place and our construction is taking place well i'm referring and more to the widening of Red Mile Road than I am Versailles Road. That is along Red Mile. Yeah, okay. Just for everybody's clarification, the reason Ball Homes owns that, their office used to be across the street. We bought that building from Ball Homes. Thank you for the history, Frank. Any further questions for the app? Okay, not seeing any. We'll move over to constituents out there that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item, either for or against. You can do so by raising your hand. Mr. John Woodhull. Mr. Woodhull. I'm here. I'm with the applicant. That's okay. Okay. Okay. Sorry about that. It's okay. Okay. Okay. And Paula, Paula, excuse me, Sanger. Yes. I'm here. Okay. Now you want to speak on behalf of this agenda item? I want to speak opposed to the agenda item. Okay. That's fine. You're up. Thank you very much. I'm going to read mostly from my statement, which I sent to members last evening. So if you wish to follow along, I'll try to stay within the three minutes. Can you see me or just hear me? We can only hear you at the moment. Okay, that's fine. Thank you very much. I would like to point out that this will be the ninth convenience store gas station on Versailles Road between the two-mile stretch from Parker's Mill to Angliana Avenue. This will be the ninth and the largest. So I'd like to begin with the intent of B-1 zoning. Per Article 8-16A of the zoning ordinance, the B-1 zone is intended to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area. Generally, they should be planned facilities and should be located as recommended in the comprehensive plan. This zone should be oriented to the residential neighborhood and should have a roadway system which will be adequate to accommodate vehicular traffic. The applicant has expressed concerns regarding visibility of the fuel pumps when initially requesting the Board of Adjustment variance, which has now been withdrawn. Applicants feared moving the fuel pumps to the rear of the property would decrease visibility to passing traffic and as a consequence deter business. The redesign maintains the 16 fuel pumps along the Versailles Road frontage. The design and the redesign do not conform to the intent of the B1 zone. The proposed development seeks to attract business from through traffic and not the surrounding residential neighbourhood as per the intent of B1 zoning. Further, the development records on file and to which Mr. Martin referred show that the 1320 for Sales Road property on which this 1935 apartment building sits has specific B1 intent mentioned for the development of said property. And I have included that visual in your packet. The intent of the B1 zoning is for the first floor of the building to be used as neighborhood business, while the upper level is to be maintained as apartments. Further, at 1.727 acres, this proposed development will dwarf all other eight gas station convenience stores in the aforementioned two-mile area. Two of the largest existing stations are the Shell at 2300 Versailles Road and the Thortons at 1311-1315 Versailles Road. Their individual acreage is 1.041 and 0.7144 respectively. The Shell station is a 12 pump. The proposed development is a 16 pump station. It is important to your considerations to note the following. The 10 pump Thornton's gas station convenience store on outbound for sales road, one property east of the Red Mile intersection, also straddles two properties as this development proposes to do. However, the property at 1315 is B3. The property at 1311 is B1. Given the proposed development is one full acre larger than the Thorntons across the street, and with six more fueling stations, a B3 zoning seems more appropriate to this development. and to the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan. The location of this proposed development falls within the area studied by the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, which I was a member on the steering committee. A housing strategy goal of the plan, goal number three, states, objective, expand affordable rental opportunities through preservation of existing rental units. This proposed development runs contrary to the strategy of the comprehensive plan itself. The Red Mile Gateway, the Red Mile Road Gateway intersection is highlighted in the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan as a future site of illuminated gateway columns, enhanced crosswalks, seating and gathering space, enhanced pedestrian lighting, equine industry-inspired design motif, and new masked armed signals. All recommendations geared to enhance the pedestrian experience as well as improving comprehensive improvements for mobility and image for the key corridor to the City of Lexington. Construction is already underway for Sections 1 and 2 of the For Sales Road Streetscape Project with a focus on pedestrian safety, alternative modes of transit, aesthetic improvements to the corridor. The proposed development is in section number three, the next section. We must not lose sight of the goals and recommendations of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan. Safety and improved corridor aesthetics are crucial components to a city that depends on tourism and for its economic security. Dislocation of 12 households during a pandemic and affordable housing crisis. The applicant advises planning staff that they have timing concerns acquiring the property and would like to be heard at the PC this Thursday, today. I also have concerns regarding displacing 12 households during a pandemic and a city-acknowledged affordable housing crisis. Planning staff advises me that displaced low-income household assistance is not actually in the ordinance. Staff further advises that the Planning Commission has considerable latitude when they review a plan. I therefore ask you to use this considerable latitude and disapprove this development plan for the following reasons. There are seven. One, it does not conform. Ms. Singer, I'll let you go a little bit. You're at seven minutes right now. Well, I have about 30 more seconds. Okay. Yes, ma'am. I was just keeping you up to date. Thank you so much. It does not conform to the intent of the B1 zone to serve the needs of the surrounding area. It does not conform to the intent of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan along Versailles Road from New Circle to Red Mile Road South to create an inviting entry to the city while interweaving the needs of an underserved community. Three, there is an oversupply of gas station convenience stores in the area. This development would threaten the financial viability of existing businesses. It does not serve the City of Lexington's dependence on aesthetic improvements along this gateway for promotion of tourism and economic stability. It does not serve the residents of this corridor by displacing 12 households during a pandemic and an acknowledged affordable housing crisis. Insufficient time has been allowed for a thorough review and consideration of the proposed development. Finally, a business arrangement to purchase a property is not a valid reason to fast-track development proposal crucial to corridor safety, city economic development, and the welfare of 12 households during a pandemic. I thank you for the additional time. Thank you. Okay. All right. So next up, we have Council Member Jennifer Reynolds. Hello, can you hear me okay? Yes. Hello, thank you for letting me have a few minutes. And I appreciate each of you for the work that you do for the city. My name is Jennifer Reynolds. I'm the 11th district council member, which is where this development is located or would be located. I want to first off say that I totally understand the developers perspective here and their desire to do something lucrative in that spot. And my comments are because I want to fully represent my district and my constituents. And I have quite a few constituents that are really concerned about this particular development. I realize, you know, our comments may or may not be taken to heart. But the reality is that the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan did not include this type of development. That is not what it was seeking out to have in new development. It was affordable housing and common spaces for people to gather and things like that. The Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan was a very expensive study that was done in that part of the corridor. And I feel that as we move forward, it's important to take those types of plans into consideration. Otherwise, what's the point of using that money and engaging the public in order to come up with them? So on one hand, I have to say that another gas station does not go along with the type of corridor that the residents in this area wanted to create. And this is a corridor that everybody sees coming in and out of Keeneland, in and out of the airport. And it has room to improve. And we're trying to do that with safety measures, with fixing the sidewalks and bike lanes and things like that and adding some aesthetic features. But adding, I guess to echo, another gas station in an area that has nine gas stations in a small radius, I do not think is serving the community well. I do not think it is something that the residents need. And I think that there's something that could go there that would be a lot more, I guess, helpful to the community than another gas station. And it's, it's, it is, if we're looking at aesthetics, it's something that once again, you know, to, to go down a corridor and see so many gas stations is not very aesthetically pleasing. I, I, I like the green space on the backside of this development, but with just that gas station being right there. I guess in order to express the concerns of my constituents completely, I just have to say that I'm disappointed that it's not something that has taken more into the consideration than neighborhood. In addition, I am concerned about the displacement of the people in the apartment complex there, whether they, you know, consider to be, you know, in under the poverty line or not. I don't want anybody to be displaced. So those are my concerns. I wanted to communicate them on behalf of constituents that could not attend this meeting. A lot of people work during the day and can't attend these meetings. And so I just wanted to, to express that. Thank you for your comments from the citizens, Council Member Reynolds. Thank you. Do you want to comment on some of the concerns that Ms. Singer and Ms. Reynolds has? Sure. You know, first and foremost, just to remind everybody, the property is Zone B1 and that's, and that does allow for automobile fueling and convenience stores. And, you know, by the way we look at this thing, for us, being big is part of what is an unfortunate situation for this. You know, if you take off that back finger where we have the green space, we're probably very comparable to that Thornton's and other developments around there. You know, we feel that our size is appropriate for what we're looking to do. You know, talking about the character of area in a thousand feet of us, there's multiple automobile uses, truck rentals, car repairs, things of that nature. You know, we feel that this is with the character of the area in regards to the plan. That is very true. You're right. You know, gas station may not be the best the best item that the plan advised. But, you know, again, it is a allowable use at this location. It does meet the setbacks. It does meet that. You know, we have incorporated the small area study aspects of that. We've used the wider sidewalks. We're doing the pedestrian connections. We're doing the bike racks. We're doing the landscaping. The improvements that we're making to the intersection, it's our understanding that we're going to work with transportation engineering. And there's going to be new poles put up for the signal arms and things of that nature. And as things come online, you know, those improvements will be made to that intersection from that corridor of Versailles Road corridor study. You know, we are we are aware of that. We feel this meets the character. We feel it meets it meets the zoning requirements. And we feel this is a good project where we're here. We'll work with the neighbors in the apartment building. um you know we are willing to to document and show that we have provided assistance for those that need it um you know we do have compassion for those however speedway has the right to purchase this property and that's what we're looking to develop out there would be uh something that's going to strengthen tax base it's going to bring in jobs it's also going to help our corporate facilities by having another another location in the city of lexington All those need to be factors to helping out the city's tax base. So with that being said, we, again, we, we, we hear the comments. We're willing to work with our, with our team and our people in the city. And again, we, we really feel that this is a good development. Tom, do you have anything you'd like to say? Yes, staff does, but I'd like to know if Ms. Singer or the council member would like to respond to the applicant's statements, and then staff would prefer to close out. All right. I would like to respond. This is Paula Singer. Yes, ma'am. I would say that while the applicant is correct in that this is an allowable use, I will say once again, it does not conform to the intent of the B1 zone, which is to be geared to the residential area surrounding the development. It does not it gears to passing traffic to people going in and out. It's it's geared to vehicular traffic. If it were geared more to the residential zone, those pumps would be in the back of the building, in the back of the property, which was the original suggestion of planning staff when looking at the plan. when it was coming before the Board of Adjustment. So I think we really have to go to the intent. We have to look to the intent of this particular building. You have the 1977 development plan there in my package where it shows residential is to be maintained on the top floor, neighborhood business on the bottom floor. That certainly does not conform to a 1.727 acre gas station convenience store. And a convenience store does not serve the community. A convenience store offers goods, overpriced goods. I'm sorry. It's not a grocery store. It's not a community center. it is geared towards traffic not the residential area thank you thank you council member Reynolds do you have any further comments I guess in the future what we're all looking for and hoping is in new developments that we we look at housing and that we just bring the local community into the conversation. And so I hope that moving forward that can be done. Okay, thank you. Tom? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, staff has several items of clarification we believe it'd be appropriate to bring before you. And that is, small area plans are adopted by reference into your comprehensive plan. They are designed to guide zone changes. This is a legal use of an existing piece of property. Furthermore, the applicant is making an effort to meet that intent in terms of how they're addressing Griselles Road, as is a large amount of public dollars that are being spent to beautify all within the right-of-way. They are adding an eight-foot sidewalk. That certainly does meet the intent of the small area plan. I would add, too, that in terms of affordable housing, this body just approved affordable housing further west of Bersales Road recently. You may recall Wildwood, multi-unit. So you have, in that sense, made a decision to help address the need for affordable housing as called for under the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan. Staff would also like to point out that this is at the edge of the study, at the edge of the defined neighborhood, right across the street, where Mr. Penn told us, Ball Homes used to have their headquarters, there's a large apartment complex, a residential use, just adjacent to this property to the west, where the large green space is, and they're going to build the cul-de-sac, that's zoned R2. That's a residential use. That's a neighborhood. These uses have been identified as serving neighborhoods. Yes, and they do. I would staff would venture to say that a large number of residents utilize convenience stores, if not weekly, daily in their lives to to for that very reason, they are convenient. so again staff just wanted to clarify a few things and help inform and educate the body that this plan does in fact uh the the the aspects of this plan do meet the intent of the b1 zone placing the canopy in the back was talked about there are some issues with that uh lighting and traffic would then be closer to the residential zone to the west and create an issue for that as opposed to being out on an arterial street. So again, I just wanted to clarify that and make that very clear that this is an existing B1 property and with the landscaping, the pedestrian improvements. It certainly does conform with the intent of the small area plan. I would add too that economic choice does exist. There are a lot of gas stations in the area, granted. Most of them have a different brand name, offering choice to the residents. And again, that is a function of our economy as well. And with that, I am finished. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I bring this back to the commission, members, for further discussion, either with African or amongst each other, or staff. Ms. Plumlee? Hello, Ms. Plumlee, you're on mute. get it yes ma'am thank you at this point i'm a little confused because i remember when we were doing the comprehensive plan that we intended i thought in that to have corridors such as for sales nicholasville etc to become more residential and not only residential but public transit oriented. So in doing this development, it's of course commercial. And we've even had the possibility of removing a bus stop, certainly from that corner, or maybe obliterated altogether, which would again not follow what I thought we were trying to do with the comp plan. the small area plan has been mentioned a couple of times and how we do small area plans and I've said this many times on in sitting on this commission small areas plans are essentially a waste of funds we toss out 75 80 100 over a hundred thousand dollars and then when it comes to development, we don't adhere to it. That's right. Yes. Anyway, I think that we really aren't fulfilling the intent of the zone here and the intent of the corridor in something. what I think the neighbors and hopefully from an aesthetic level would be better for Lexington. And again, I'm in listening to the discussion of the developer, and I appreciate him working with the staff from where we first started with this, that we're hearing more and more about using gasoline stations less and less because we're going to electric vehicles and so forth. And we're sitting here in 2021 and talking about multiple, multiple pumps. I'm just, I'm kind of confused with all that also. So those are my comments right now. I just am I'm confused with what this intent is at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Plumlee, for your comments and statements. The floor is open for any further discussion or statements from the commission members. I've got one, Larry. Yes, sir. I would tend to think that the Red Mile Road would be a collector also or be an arterial. Can somebody clear me up on how the Red Mile Road is designated? Yes, sir. I believe it is. It was determined on a previous plan that it is an arterial. Okay, thank you. And that being said, I think the reason that these pumps are facing Versailles Road is they can get a few more in there than if it was facing the Red Mile Road. And if this development was facing the Red Mile Road with the pumps, you could do a lot more with the viewscape from Versailles Road. And I understand why they didn't want to put them in the back. and I understand from the planning commission side that we probably wouldn't want them in the back because of the residential. But I don't understand why we wouldn't want them on the side facing Red Mile Road so they could do some more landscaping and make it more aesthetically pleasing from the sales road. Ms. Steph. Hold on one second. Hold on a minute. Mr. Pope. I just wanted to make an observation that we've talked about the demolition of the proposed demolition of the apartment building, but no one has mentioned the structure on the corner, which is a chicken shop. And the reason I bring that up is that when you look at the scale of this project, it's hard to tell looking at the plan just how big this thing is, but when you start thinking about two sites being gobbled up and being replaced by a massive row of gas pumps, it takes on a very different aesthetic reality. That's all I've got. All right. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Mr. Ben, I would like to get your question answered from Mr. Sweet about the pump facing Red Mile Road instead of facing Roussel Road. So, Mr. Sweet, if you don't mind. Sure. So we looked at an option like that. However, the issue becomes getting the traffic to flow correctly and getting our tanker truck to flow correctly. And having the pump stack like that, there's issues with vehicles transecting the interior of the pump. So if you're at spot eight and you got a car that's looking to get into spot six, there's a weave point and there's another point. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. There's probably plenty of gas stations within the city that are built in like a stacked format. Speedway likes to go after the diving style because that does give the driver or the customer better visibility around the pump. That also eliminates conflicts underneath the canopy. And by doing that, that gives our customers better visibility. And that also gives pedestrians and other folks using the building better visibility around there. It's more of a safety issue. That also helps with our fuel tank path. As you can see, where we've now relocated the tanks, our fuel trucks locate on the passenger side. So that gives them a nice shelter area. Plus that helps our truck maneuver the site better by having the canopy where it is. Thank you. Does it change the number of pumps? Potentially. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Yes. As commission members, we sometimes get caught in this slight bind because the applicant is well within his rights and legal limits in terms of the B1 zone to do what he's proposing to do. But I have a question for the applicant because he hit upon something which is something else that's being reviewed now by the community and by a subcommittee that I'm serving on representing the commission. It's called Neighborhoods in Transition. And one of the things that we're certainly watching is displacement of, and I should say, involuntary displacement of people in areas. But the applicant made a point, and I'd like for a little clarification, how many residents would be impacted through this development? And what would you specifically do to help them to relocate or whatever the case may be? So I believe there are 12 units in the building. I don't know if that building is completely occupied or not. So I do know that there's 12 units. And as far as helping them out, you know, I think going along with the recommendations, not only with staff, but, you know, getting them in contact with the folks at the correct agencies at the city of Lexington and working with them, giving them phone numbers, doing those kinds of things, helping them get into contact with the folks that can help. That is what we would do and possibly go above and beyond depending on what that request is. Okay. And I understand. And first of all, let me say I appreciate that offer. If I were a resident there, I would probably ask more specifically, does that neighborhood have a homeowners association or association of some kind? Not that we're aware of. There could be. Okay. Have you met with any of the residents in that particular place? We did not, primarily because this was a straight zone property and a neighborhood meeting was not required. Okay. And I understand that. And I'm trying to be as diplomatic as I can, because quite frankly, from a legal perspective, you have every right to do based on our zoning to do what you're proposing. So that's not really an issue. And the question is, is what other kinds of accommodations could be made in order to help facilitate the spirit of the law as in addition to the letter of the law? So that's what I was trying to get at. Thank you. Any additional comments, statements, questions, concerns? I have a question. Yes. With regard to the tenant situation, do you all have any plans, Mr. Sweet, to proactively meet with them to figure out what they need? Because giving phone numbers is great, but at the same time, it costs money to move. have you all considered you know helping them you know financially make a move if you you know since you're planning to displace them I don't believe so I think what we what we would do is if they we would probably and I'm not too sure how Speedway does it with some of their tenants but I my understanding would be we would likely meet with them and and offer their services Speedway is in the business of building gas stations and fueling stations. We can help them to where they need to be. I'm sure if there were particular cases or one-off cases, we would work with them. But, you know, unfortunately, we are not a tenant relocator or anything like that. David, do you want to chime in on that? Mr. Sweet, just a quick synopsis. You can contact the housing authority and may get some directions there. There may be some opportunities in the area. Of course, I don't think you're from around these parks, so it may be a better help to you as well. You may want to explore those options. Yeah. And, you know, again, we'll be willing to assist and do what we need to in regards to financial obligations. I cannot answer that question. Hey, can you guys hear me now? Sorry. Yes. Trying to speak earlier. I had my phone going, so I apologize about that. But yeah, I appreciate y'all's time. I think, you know, that's something that's beyond, you know, my decision making at this point. But I feel like I completely understand the situation in the world that we're living in today and, you know, that we would make an effort to do what needs to be done, you know, specific to the tenants that are in that building. the last thing yes we're we're in the business of building gas stations but as as Mr. Wilson represented you know trying to hit on the the spirit of the law I think you know helping those folks out is is also you know at least near and dear to my heart you know I've had family members that have been displaced from their jobs you know in this pandemic it's it's a very difficult world we're living in today. So I, like I said, I can't just tell you right now that I promised that we can, you know, make X, Y, and Z happen, but let you know that it is, you know, that issue is near and dear to my heart and make sure that, you know, I address it with, you know, the decision makers that make those decisions within my company and make sure that we address those, whether that's, you know, giving them, you know, phone numbers right now. I think, you know, also just to kind of give you a little bit of background on this project, you know, I'm still fairly new with this particular site and, you know, came in and we had a lot to do and get accomplished, you know, to make this deadline. So, you know, it's, I was aware that we had, you know, I guess it's an apartment building that we're displacing, but, you know, it is something that, you know, we do not take lightly, and I'll make sure to bring that up with, you know, the powers that be and address this, so, sorry about that, rambled on for a little bit. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Bell had his hands. Oh, okay, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, you go after him, sorry about that. Yeah, this is very sensitive. Ms. Singer spoke eloquently and Councilman Reynolds is really representing her constituents, I think, very, very well. but this is an area that um you know we we've struggled with it is it is an entryway into our city and it's it's over time you know it was what it is and there are efforts that are being made to make it better um i struggle because this is within this is within the zoning uh that is allowed staff recommends it approves it um sometimes i feel that economics allow improvement energy within a community um this this area couldn't take just any kind of a of an investment uh particularly you know i mean we talk about what else would we like to have well this is likely the best scenario for that particular place that's why it's zoned what it's zoned and as far as moving the pumps around or whatever it's still going to be what it is which is a big um big service area and and maybe the other service areas won't be able to stay in business and maybe somebody will come through and find a better alternative within things so i struggle because it's approved zoning and and um and and versales road we'd like we'd like for it to improve but there's not a master plan to to make it improve so i'm just i'm i'm struggling with the situation uh and i just wanted to express that thank you for your comments mr bill mr wilson yes just as a final comment first of all let me say how much i appreciate the applicant's attitude in terms of approach to this because we've had many times applicants to come and developers to come in and it's almost like, well, this is the way it is. We have the right to do it and go on. But I do appreciate it and would certainly encourage the applicant to do everything they possibly can to abide by that spirit. Now, as it relates to the entry level to the city and what have you, I'm attuned to that and I'm aware of that. And like I said, we're kind of hamstrung here in terms of what is permissible vis-a-vis, what is acceptable as such. But sometimes we always figure out the cost of everything and the value of very little and the value that we're placing here today is the impact on the community as such notwithstanding the fact that may not be defined in any kind of formalized project or program but i just wanted to express one thing or some appreciation to the applicant for taking the position of doing everything they can to help those people in the tenant situation to do and i understand it's not within their legal limit to do they can't make that commitment but the idea they would go back and work with their corporate people to do what's what and I think that there may be some some solutions there and some help and assistance that are more definable but uh and that they're willing to help do and I think uh they can do that if they do that I think that that would be most helpful and most appreciated. Thank you. We've we've had a lot of discussion on this particular application and agenda item uh very good discussions so I want to close this off to bring it back to commission as a whole to open the floor to see if we're going to move this forward or make a decision here. So, Ms. Plumlee, you're raising your hand. Whenever you're ready, I have a motion. I'm ready unless anyone else has any statements. Ms. Plumlee? Okay, Mr. Chair, thank you. I move disapproval for PLN MJ DP 2076, Ball Homes Property, and Lillian Hunt Speedway. Now, at the risk of creating total chaos, I need to ask legal to write for findings because my laity mind cannot do that at this point, which would be findings for disapproval. May I do that? Yes, I got Tracy is here right now. So let me look to both Tracy's. My left and right. I'm really putting her on the spot and I apologize, but with this Zoom business, it's a little difficult to do things the way we normally would do them if we were in chambers downtown. And I'm sorry. Yes. Ms. Plumlee is going to give us about three to five minutes. That's not adequate. I mean, that's great. I appreciate that. Okay. Make sure everyone's aware. there's not an app for that Oh, wow. Thank you. just to make you aware Mr. Sweet you're on you're unmuted just if you want to be muted you're all right Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Blumley, I think we have some information here for everyone. Let me put this in. I think Tom addressed it a little bit in the beginning when he said that this is a development plan. So it's in a zone where this particular use is already permitted. The concern that I have in trying to draft something, and I just want to make you all aware is that your review of a development plan or a subdivision plan is different than when you review a zoning application. So when you look at a subdivision or development plan, then you can modify those or disapprove those, but you have to have evidence and find that that the zoning ordinance is not being complied with, that the land subdivision regulations are not being complied with, or that there are existing or potential issues that involve flooding, drainage, traffic, topographic health, safety, nuisance type problems. And so my concern is that, you know, you've heard the recommendations from staff and the sign-offs from the different divisions that have been working on this telling you that the subdivision regulation is being complied with. It's clearly within the zoning for B1. And so I'm not sure we've heard anything else today that would give us enough findings, unless you have specific something in mind out of those things I just talked about, to disapprove this. And, you know, The things about the, it's not, you know, it's not in compliance with the intent of the B1 zone. That's a zoning issue, which is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about development plan. The issue about, you know, complying with small area plans, that's a zoning issue. Again, this is a development plan issue. So I just wanted to put that out there. And if you all have further questions or discussions, we can do that. But I don't want to give you something to adopt as findings that may or may not be justified by what has been put forth in the hearing today and that might put you in peril of some type of an appeal or something like that that you may or may not want to deal with. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Penn, you're on mute too, by the way. how about that is that better yes sir uh i understand the spirit that ms plumby is coming with and that's why i was asking to maybe tweak it a little bit to make it not quite as offensive to the neighborhood association i i don't see any way we can do anything but to either revise the development plan and then approve it or to approve it. So if there's no will to revise the development plan and postpone it, then I think the only thing we can do is go with it. Yeah. Go ahead. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, essentially that's what I would agree with Mr. Penn, whereas I understand what's going on here. And the only thing I can say is let's make this as palatable as we possibly can. Because I don't think, quite frankly, Senator, I mean, it's very difficult to go against anybody who, for the staff, has a recommendation without definitive having information about it. And this is the confliction that we have as it relates to it. Now, I have a bigger issue, but I don't want to use up time today to say it. I'll just say that I agree with Mr. Penn's perspective on it. I think we have to do what is in the realm of the law today. We either approve or disapprove the development plan, but that does not, we can't change the zoning on it. That's permissible by the zoning laws, and that's what they have applied to and what they're functioning under. But I have a bigger issue that one day, not today, to bring up as it relates to this corridor. And the other issue, and I'll just tell you this one, I'm still having confliction between what's arterial and what's collateral, collective, in terms of definitions. Who is it? As the parliamentarian, just so we're above board, how will we handle this? Since Plumlee made a motion, so is the motion known and void now? Did you get a second? Based on if the legal department is saying, in effect, that it's not something that is within our purview, that motion becomes what is known as dilatory. It has to be taken off the table. And that's just a point. In other words, you can't make a motion which is against the law, federal, state, or local, or against the bylaws of an organization. You can't do that. Now, I know the sentiment would be to do it, but you can't do it. Not by parliamentary law, anyhow. So the best thing to do would say either Ms. Plumlee would take your motion off the table or you as chairman would have to declare it dilatory. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? My question to you is, if we cannot vote to disapprove it, then we have to approve it. So why have we wasted our time sitting here this afternoon? You said you, Ms. Plumlee, are you talking to me or staff? I'm just making the comment for the world. Because I'm sitting here too. so i'm i mean i'm i'm just i'm really bewildered at this point so miss meyer well do we to frank's um uh comments do we have any ladder and and let's let's see another plan Ms. Maya I think you went out a little bit but just so I I'm assumed did you say you want to know if we had any latitude to make any adjustments to the to the development plan yes okay I mean do we you know postpone this or continue it or whatever we do and ask them to go back and Per, you know, the comments that have been made today, can they come back next month with another plan? I'll resort to Ms. Wade here and leave it. Excuse me. You do have some latitude. And let me just say both in response to Ms. Meyer and Ms. Plumlee, you know, you all do regularly consider development plans and subdivision plans. And, you know, you are bound within the zoning on those and the specific things as to how much latitude you have, which is generally not as broad as discretion as you have in the zone change. But as you know, from your experience that, you know, there's a number of conditions even on subdivision and development plans. And those are the things that you all do discuss and you do have the authority to discuss. So what I would tell you is if there are specific things that you want to identify that you think should be further addressed or further contemplated in some way, recognizing that the zoning is in place on this particular development plan, I think there, and Ms. Wade can confirm this for me, I think there is some time to postpone here before you get into a position where you have to act by the statutory deadline. So that would be up to you. But I would encourage you, if you're going to do something like that, that you have something specific you want to postpone in order to see that it gets addressed in some fashion. Mr. Poole. I'd be inclined to want to postpone and ask the applicant to revise the plan in such a way that it maximizes landscape screening along both of the Red Mile Road and Versailles corridor. and perhaps consider removing one of the pump islands to help with that. But it seems to me that a minimal approach to just meeting the strict requirements of the ordinances is not addressing some of the issues that were raised by citizens. And I'm a little concerned that we have, I don't know how many, seven or eight letters from concerned citizens, including council members and former council members. and I'm concerned that given the situation, it's not the fault of the applicant at all. In fact, I agree with Mr. Wilson that the applicant's attitude has been excellent. They've been very honest and I really appreciate that. But I also don't like seeing citizens' concerns just being cut off simply because things seem to be in place. So that's how I'm feeling right now. Thank you. All right. So we have an option here. Either postpone it or listed. Well, the current 90-day deadline for the commission is in two weeks on February 28th. So you do currently have a scheduled meeting for that day. So the planning commission could. Oh, February 28th. No, you have until February. So yes, you could postpone to February. Can I take a shot at this? Yes, sir. Thank you. In view of the discussion we've had today and the view of the comments of the rest of the commission, I think it'd be appropriate to postpone this until the 28th of February, whenever that next date is, and ask the applicant to work with the intent and the spirit of what not only the Versailles Road corridor, but also thinking about long term, about how the Red Mile Road is going to look like as it comes in to Versailles Road. and I'm talking to the Farm Bureau as much as I'm talking to them. I think that's a consideration we all have to have, and I'd like to postpone this and ask them to revise their development plan to where it takes in, where we don't just see 16 gas pumps and decide, oh, we've got to run in here. So I'll make that in form of a motion. The next subdivision item meeting is scheduled February the 11th. so we're going to so you want to do it to the 11th yes it will be February 11th your motion is to postpone until February 11th meeting yes sir okay continue yes a continuous would be better so we don't have to go through the same process again I love Tom but I don't want to hear him again on the same thing well I'll tell you what I like Tom and I don't want to hear him either so I will change to continue. I know that creates some problems, but I want to give the applicant all the layway that I can to make this as good as he can possibly make it. We have a motion for continuance to the February 11th meeting. In a second, thank you. Any further discussion? Question. Yes, ma'am. Question. Does that continuance, are we wanting the applicant to kind of reply to some of the citizen concerns or is that not part of it? Did I lose you? Well, Mr. Wilson. Well, first of all, legally, they don't have to do that because this is not a zone change. this is a development plan so now in the if we're getting ready to go into a zoning issue then it would almost be well not required but strongly suggested that they do that but i was thinking that in terms of the spirit of the law and spirit of what was going on that they would do what they could to do it but i think miss barksdale brings up a very good point for me and i don't mean to take it away from you the key is what do we expect them to do between now and next in february 11 yes yes yeah yeah you want me to address that yeah yeah yes sir you had the motion on the floor so those like that all i think we can ask them to do is to look at the scale of what they're doing and how it affects the site view of sales road and could they possibly tweak their development plan to where it wouldn't be overpowering from the sales road or from red mile for that matter is there any other configuration they can do that makes that less of truth here okay now mr poehler your second still stands yeah all right just just double check okay we have a motion for the continuing to the February 11th meeting and a second by Mr. Poe. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes. Okay, we'll see you back, Mr. Sweet, on the 11th of February. Thank you. Hey, does anyone need a bathroom? break. Okay. All right. The good news, Mr. Chairman, is if I needed one, I don't have to ask anybody. At your age, that's probably necessary. Well, I carry a catheter with you. Can we do like a three-minute break or so? I mean, for folks to get some water or something. I didn't see him have his milk, so he probably need that. Let's do a three-minute break here before we get to the next agenda item, which is on page seven. Yeah. Lex TV, can you put us in break mode? Well, take care of it. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. you already been here frank be careful uh uh larry i've been looking at a netflix series called the vikings so i'm all up in arms you kind of look like a viking i'm not saying uh and we show it today on members and y'all acting like this too We're going to have to talk. Has the LexTV, are we ready? We're on here. Okay, thank you, sir. So, looks like we're next up on the agenda is page 7. And PLN, MJDP-20-81, Hamburg East. Looks like we also have an expansionary area plan for findings for that. So, staff? Tom, I'm ready when you are. Yes, sir. We're trying to share screen. Oh, okay. LeBron. Ah, click on share. But you didn't get the right plan. I'm working on that. And here we aren't. We're getting close. Keep going. There we are. All right. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is Major Development Plan 20-81 Hamburg East, Track 4, Lot 1, also known as Bellhurst. It is in the expansion area, so it is a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan that is very standard in the expansion. area. It is located along Manowar and Blackford Parkway comes in at this location and intersection. This is Park Road, which is an aspect of this development. Winchester Road would be up in this location, I-75 back down this way. So this, as you all well know was a recent zone change out in this area and it involved this entire property including the greenway there were townhouses in this area this is the single family proposal they are proposing 80 single family lots now along with the single family lots they are going to be building a continuation of what is identified in the EAMP, the Expansion Area Master Plan Park Road. It is Blackford. I don't know what name will be continued to this way. It may very well be Blackford. We have a committee that reviews those types of things, and we do like to continue names to avoid the confusion that exists in some parts of our community. It is a collector street. Now, Mr. Wilson, a collector street is just that. It's a collector street. It collects traffic from all these local streets, and then it takes it out to an arterial. Okay. The names are really very much what they sound like. Okay. Streets. Local streets serve local. They have lots of access. They serve business. They serve residential. The collector collects that traffic from the local street and provides it with access out to our arterial system. An arterial system is a higher classification, has higher standards. It's designed to carry more traffic. And it's really not a complicated classification system, just very much like it sounds. You know, an arterial, if you think about it, it's like the major arteries in our bodies. These are the major streets that serve our community. Now, with that, again, this is the proposal by the applicant to develop the single family homes that were part of the original development. As I stated before, they're proposing 80 single-family lots. You can see the local street system with the cul-de-sacs. This is the extension into the adjoining property so that when it develops, it will be connected to this system as well. There is an access, emergency access in this location. It will be removed once this connection is made, although pedestrian and bike access will remain out to Manowar. So again, this is a slightly revised plan. It virtually matches the zone change plan that this body reviewed and approved a few months ago. And again, that plan had townhouses, you may recall, in this area, along with the Greenway and then the single family home area that you see before you today. today. There was an access issue that was discussed at length on this plan concerning these lots along the collector street. Oops. How did I do that? Okay. My fingers, my heavy fingers have done something. You hit a collective button rather than an arterial one. I think I did. No, that's not it. I'm back. Yeah. I paged forward is what I did. Yeah. Yeah. Keep going. Yeah. There we go. yeah I just paged all the way to the end there it is there you go pardon me I just hit the mouse I'm glad I have text support do what oh okay there we go ah there we go folks pardon me again I'm going to let go of the mouse for a minute I was just trying to orient you again The lots that border Park Road, there was considerable discussion about driveway access to collector streets. That tends to become a management problem. So that issue was discussed at length at the zone change. The applicant has proposed a 35-foot setback on those lots that border the collector street. That will allow for residents to turn around on their property and pull out into the collector street as opposed to backing into the street. Eventually, this collector street will conceivably continue over to Winchester Road. There's going to be a school in the area, a park, as you all are well aware. A Baptist Hospital is being developed. So this street will eventually carry a lot of traffic, including the additional residential that will develop on the adjacent property to the north. So again, that is one reason we have a slight difference in the setback along those lots on Park Street. we have a resolution of a note that just again addresses concerns from the zone change the place builder criteria and the AMP a lot of those on this plan are being met and I'm going to touch the mouse again but I'm going to stay away from the button again the alignment of Park Road That was a great discussion. The EAMP envisioned these collector streets to be adjacent to the greenways, but due to engineering and on-site concerns, Blackford ended up at this location. So they had to start at this point. They are bringing it to here so that as these other properties develop, staff can work to help ensure that there is a good relationship between this collector street and the greenway, which runs on in that direction towards Winchester Road, as you all are aware. So that was one issue of the park road alignment. And it's one issue of some of the notes, note 12 that you see, there are just various issues, most of which are relative to the townhouses, utilization of the greenway and pedestrian access in this area. There were fewer concerns, obviously, with the single-family development portion. This development, frankly, matches most of the single-family development that's been done in the expansion area. The lot standards are very typical of what has been done throughout the expansion area. the excuse me staff has reviewed this revised plan and again you can see with the pretty colored paper what the revised conditions are now in conjunction with this as you all are aware you need to make a finding and we have given you the report the eamp compliance report. Now, this particular plan that you see before you, because it is only the single family portion and not the entire property, they averaged their density under the EAR1 and EAR2 for the entire property, and they had to utilize the greenway acreage, which is certainly acceptable in the AMP. Now, you may recall that the land use, EAR1 and 2, have been reversed from the AMP. But overall, when you consider the property as a whole, they do meet the density. This portion by itself would not, again. So, under the AMP, they meet the recommended land use of residential. And they meet the density if and only if they add a portion of this greenway to this plan. And that is one of the recommendations we have made in your EAMP report. Now, as you are aware, that's a community design density issue and a community design issue. Well, this is single family homes, they've established the same criteria that they have utilized in other residential developments throughout the EAMP, particularly back up of the Blackwood Parkway. The infrastructure is also is something that has to comply with the EAMP. I might add in terms of community development standards that they're required to meet, There were no significant tree stands. There's no environmentally sensitive areas. There are no rural scenic highways. There's very little constraints on this property relative to the EAMP and to the community design element of the EAMP. It is a very distinct neighborhood. It is well defined by the road systems primarily. And when it is completely built out, it will be well defined and connected by the greenway and the trail system. The infrastructure is also an element that has to comply with the EAMP and the only infrastructure element required by the EAMP is Park Road. And they are going to build Park Road, so they're compliant. That is an exactable feature, which means they get to build it and the cost of that goes against the exactions that they have to pay when they build the houses here. There are no stormwater major facilities recommended on this property. They are upstream and they are downstream and they are in place. The sanitary sewer, you all heard us talk about this a lot lately where the development's out here. That trunk line has been built. That pump station has been built. So in terms of infrastructure, this plan is compliant with the EAMP, both in infrastructure and the community design. Again, staff would just like to emphasize that when you look at your report, they are in substantial compliance with the AMP, but staff is recommending that they include an area of the greenway on this plan prior to certification, and that will bring them into full compliance with the density requirements. They will not have to deal with any design issues at this time on this area until they bring in the final development plan for the townhouses. And at that time, we'll be looking at those issues that impact the townhouses, including pedestrian facilities, trail facilities, access to the greenway. The cross section for the park road, the collector street, that they are in discussion with staff does alter slightly from the AMP. The reason we're having those discussions is staff wants to emphasize the pedestrian aspects of that road. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this plan, and we are recommending that you do make a finding that the plan is in substantial compliance with the EAMP, the Expansion Area Master Plan. And with that, I will turn it over to the commission for questions, and now I'm allowed to hit that button. There we go. All right. Thank you, Tom. Any questions for Tom? at this moment. Not seeing any. Okay. Advocate, we have Mr. Nicholson and Alan Rory with EA Partners. Thank you all. In order to make up for the last meeting, I will be very brief. We are in complete agreement with the staff's recommendations and their conditions. The issue with the greenway was just caught this morning, or else we would have already updated the plan to make sure that the site statistics were in accordance with everything that we need. We think we have an approvable plan. We certainly agree with staff and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have on this one. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. I'm not seeing any hands raised at this moment. So I will move over to see if we have any constituents out there that will let you speak on behalf of this application, either for or against. You can do so by raising your hand. I'm not seeing any. We'll bring it back to the commission. Unless there's further discussion, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Penn? Yes, sir. I move forward. Do you want a separate motion for the compliance or do you want it with the motion? No, I think I'll be best to do it separately. all right sir well i move for approval of pln mjdp 2081 with the 15 conditions as presented by staff okay we have a motion we have a second second by miss boxdale all in favor please raise your hand okay motion passes unanimously thank you i move for approval of the eamp compliance statement that talks about substantial application to that compliance. All right. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second to that motion. Second by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion is approved unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all so much. Thank you, Mr. Diffin. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Members, we do have... We're down to staff items. And staff, there's a development plan, continued discussion. PMN, MJDP-20-53, Cold Screen Research Campus. Thank you, Chairman Forrester. We had an item come to the staff's attention just this week from Strand Associates related to this development plan. So Donna, can you remove EA Partners and Nick? You have to do it from the list over here, the panelists list. And then I've added Mike Wollum on behalf of Strand Engineering. This is a plan for the Coldstream Research Campus, and it's just one lot. So let me share my screen so the Planning Commission can see that particular development plan. I can see how it's going. EA partners, they're in the panelist list. So this is a development plan for lot 14B within Coldstream Research Campus Unit 1B. it's a plan that was presented or went through the planning commission process in the late summer, early fall of last year. It was filed in August and went to the technical committee in September and then on to the subdivision committee with no changes and then ultimately was heard or approved by the planning commission October the 8th of 2020 as a consent item. And so the conditions that were associated with this particular plan were not contested by the applicant, but at this time, they brought their plan in to have it certified via Mylar that had been signed, and this is a representation of what they submitted in a cell of the Mylar they presented to the staff, and there's one condition that the staff cannot find on behalf of the planning Commission that this plan conforms to. And that one condition is, was condition number 15 on the original approval from October. And that condition reads denote, and I'm going to zoom in on the area that's an issue, denote the 100 foot scenic easement, which is shown via a dash line. So they did meet that portion and their 100 foot building line. But the condition goes on to say and remove parking and access conflicts per note number 14 on DP 2012-101. And the note associated with that has been added to this plan. So we'll see if I can get over to it. And it's related to a scenic easement. Here we go. On this plan, it's shown as note 25, which reads, the scenic easements shown here on shall be for landscaping and limited passive recreation, including biking and walking trails, as more specifically provided for in the design guidelines, which that references UK's Coldstream design guidelines. Then it goes on to say, and this is a note that has appeared on all the cold stream plans since the original zoning development plan in 1991. So the last sentence says, the scenic easements shown here on are not intended to be scenic easements within the meaning of KRS 65.410. And just for the planning commission's reference, there is a section of of KRS that talks about local governments being recipients of scenic easements and what that means for them. And there's really a process that's set out for local governments to receive scenic easements or even pay for scenic easements. So in this regard, this particular note says we're not basically, we're not following any of the KRS 65 requirements, and it's not really intended to be what that talks about. But I think the first sentence talks about what is a scenic easement in terms of what UK is doing at Coldstream. It's intended for landscaping and limited passive recreation. So when the staff reviewed this particular plan, the scenic easement was not depicted at all. So we've asked them to denote that. And then the staff recommendation to the commission was to remove any of the parking and driveway access to get to that parking lot from the scenic easement. So you can see from this development plan, there's a small portion of the drive aisle that continues to be located within the scenic easement. And so when this was brought to the staff for certification, we could not say that it agreed with or that the applicant had met condition number 15 herein and we're not as a staff in any way given the authority to modify the planning commission's conditions of our own accord so really the only option for the applicant well they had a few options was to modify their plan so they did remove the access from the scenic easements to remove that conflict or to come back to the planning commission and ask for a change to that particular condition. I'm, you know, the staff will certainly follow through on whatever the planning commission decides, but we wanted to be completely up front with and make sure that the process is followed for development plans. Obviously, the planning commission approved these conditions, And so it's our responsibility to make sure the applicants, when they submit their plans for certification, follow those conditions. At this point, I will turn it back over to the commission. Okay. We've heard Ms. Wade's information about this particular item and discussion. And Mr. Woolam from Strand is here as well. Is it Mr. Willem here? Okay, great. Does any commission member have any questions from his way before we move on over to the applicant? Mr. Willem. Not seeing any? Okay. Thank you. We want to bring, is it Mike Willem? Mm-hmm. We'll need to bring him over to speak. He's already in. He's in? Okay. Oh, yeah. How are you doing? I'm well, I'm well. And I guess I want to say thank you to Tracy and Tom and the staff for getting us on, I guess, on the agenda for today. It was on short notice, I might add. And I guess I want to go back, and I do agree with everything that Tracy said. Just by way of a little additional background, there has been, obviously, and you all may be familiar with this, a modification of the P2 zoning text to basically change sort of the character or permitted character of development for Coldstream going forward. And so these things like some of the more extreme setback requirements that were in the old, I guess, the old zoning text no longer, I guess, no longer necessarily apply. And so what's happened, and if you go back and look at the 2012 development plan, we were complying with the old requirements. And so now the focus is trying to bring buildings up closer to the street, which we have done here, sort of trying to balance that with other developments that are out in the area. and then also trying to create some, I guess, symmetrical relationship between the access point and existing street trees that are already in place out there on Bully Run. And so it was sort of a natural fit for us to, we're removing one tree that basically is right in the center of that access drive. And so that was sort of the genesis of the layout. We actually had two parking spaces that encroached in that scenic easement. and it was a mistake on my part i guess to to assume that just the parking spaces were i guess were in violation of of maybe the uh the press or the the condition that had been set i guess back in 2012 and i had explained to staff that that we've been involved with most almost all of the development plans at cold stream and there are access drives that are included that go through these scenic easements to get to the public street. Some of them go through kind of perpendicular. There's at least one on lot 26 where the pharmaceutical laboratory building is located on McGrathian, a parkway that actually runs sort of longitudinally in parallel. And so we talked with the university about this issue globally as it relates to Coldstream and the fact that we have had this text amendment, And there is a need for them to go back and do something proactively to try to basically, I don't want to say erase, because I know you can't physically erase an easement line or a building line. It has to be done with the protocol. But we thought there was latitude, or at least I did mistakenly, that we could put the access drive within that area by basically removing the parking. And we were still meeting the intent of what every other development at Coldstream had been permitted to do, which was to access the public street by some manner through that easement area. And so I'm asking here today if you all would be willing to grant, I guess, relief on that. We have to encroach by about 10 feet into that 100 foot setback as you see there. And it's again, it's strictly for the purpose of of trying to maintain the concept that was originally developed. This is actually a public private partnership that's between university and a private developer. and the university has leased space, I think, on the first level of this building for laboratory operations. And so it's a very neat opportunity for the park. And so I'm here today to see if we can ask for your consideration on that. The project is very close to being kicked off for construction. And so I'll be happy to answer any questions. But that's sort of, I guess, the background and the merits at hand. And then hopefully you all can see fit to be able to do that, given your, you know, whatever your abilities would be to, to, to weigh that requirement as it relates to this plan. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Willem. Mr. Penn, did you have a question? No, sir. Okay. I'm sorry. I've seen your hand. Does any of the members, commission members have any questions for Mr. Willem? Okay. I'm seeing any. I think we need to ask any constituents out there. It's a little different. It's already approved. The only person I see in the attendees list is Mr. Connor from the UK and certainly Mr. Wollum is representing them. We'll bring it back to the commission members then. Larry? Yes, sir? Are we, I guess I'll direct this to Tracy. Are we just amending the 100-foot sec back for this plan? Or what are we actually doing here? You're basically being asked to agree that the access drive can encroach in that scenic easement. Mr. Wollum is correct. There are other access drives that cross the scenic easement, maybe four or five places throughout Coldstream. But that's their only access to the lot. In this case, the access is on the side road. And so the staff didn't see from a site plan perspective, a reason why the driveway couldn't be shifted out of the scenic easement. there's no way to vary the scenic easement what they would have to do and we've had that conversation is go back to a preliminary subdivision plan change the scenic easement um and then amend their plats to remove that easement because a building is one thing but a scenic easement is on top of that so what we're doing is setting up a precedent to do this for other? Well, I think there is a precedent already that the access drives have already been permitted in that scenic easement. There aren't buildings. There sometimes are walls or signs, but it's been pretty limited to the bike trail for the most part and landscaping. But Mr. Willem is correct there are several locations where the access drive entrance drive for that particular development do cross the scenic easement so you want us just to amend the plan well you we just need to amend this condition to strike out and access okay we're in access good question thank you ms wade um any further questions statements concerns and the floor is open for a motion Mr. Chairman Yes, sir I move to amend plan PLNMJDP 2053 as provided by staff to amend the development plan Condition 15 Condition 15 of the development plan Okay, we got a second by Mr. Wilson Yep Do you have a question? I'm sorry Okay, I think I'll raise your lips and say no. All right. So we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. All right. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Willem. Thank you very much. Have a good weekend. All right. Whew. I think we made it. I want to make sure any other items from staff? Mr. Duncan. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I'm going to ask Tracy to talk us through one change that we want to acknowledge for our meeting and filing schedule this month. But I will tell you that next week, January 14th, we have our regularly scheduled 21st week from today, our regularly scheduled planning commission work session. And you all had asked that we bring to you as soon as possible, and this is the first work session we've had since your request, to discuss solar farms and farm employee housing. So we'll be discussing both of those with you all next Thursday at 1.30. Okay. And then Tracy has an update for our January 28th meeting. Well, the zoning committee knows they didn't meet last week because we didn't have any zoning items filed in December or January hearing. And actually, at this point, we don't have any items filed in January for February either. So there's going to be the opportunity right now to cancel the zoning item public hearing for the 28th of January. But I think the staff would request that we hold another work session on that day. So it still asks the commission to come and participate, but we won't have any zoning items. We would only have a work session that day. So we would need to amend the planning commission's adopted schedule to cancel the zoning hearing and add a work session. Ms. Plumlee? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, I move to amend the schedule to make January 28th a work session. Ms. Cole, is it second? Second. All right. Any discussion? Okay, thank you, Tracy. I thought we were going to have a break. What do you wish? February. Mr. Wilson, you got to take a vote. I am. Yeah, Ms. Plumlee. Yeah, I was going through it. Hey, Ms. Wilson, quit playing with your hair, man. You're messing me up. All in favor. At least I've got hair to play with. That's exactly right. I knew that was coming. The Lord work in mysterious ways. I hope everyone have a good weekend. Also, I was informed today that our commission member, Zach, he had a death in the family. So I just want to keep him in your prayers and send him an email. wishing him and his family well during this time. So just want to make sure that's being echoed out there. Other than that, everyone, have a good weekend and look forward to seeing you next week. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I watch you when you're sleeping And I want to take your love I want you Show me the way Every day I want you Show me the way One more time I want you Every day I want you day after day I want you show me the way every day I want to show me the way Night and day