proactive and just doing your job. I think part of what people don't get a pat on the back for sometimes is just being ready and prepared to do their job when the need arises. So thank you. We appreciate that. And what people don't really understand is that public health does this every day. It's not just during a pandemic that public health rises to the occasion. Now, a pandemic that's international like this is definitely a different piece and a different component to what we're used to, but public health is here every day for Lexington. Yeah, and I think that's important that you make that point. You just didn't wake up March the 6th and start at this. You do it on a daily basis. Just quickly, can you bring us up to speed kind of where we're at in the pandemic? You know, this is the phase where folks are getting vaccinated, and we knew that we would get here at some point. So can you kind of just run down where, you know, what is happening and where we're at in the moment? Well, through January 21st, there are almost 28,000 positive cases in Lexington and 179 deaths. We're seeing around 200 new cases a day. What we're afraid of is people getting a little too relaxed because they hear the vaccine is in Lexington. And we need you to still wear your mask. We have a distance between us right now, and nobody is close to us. That's why we have our masks off so we can communicate a little easier with people. But as soon as the camera goes off, the masks go back on. Keep social distance. Keep that, look right here, there's six feet between us at least. And make sure you wash your hands frequently. In terms of the vaccine, you look behind us. There are a few hundred people, close to probably about 1,600, 1,800 people who will be coming through today to get vaccinated, both first-time and second-time people getting that dosage. It's not widespread available here in Lexington, and that's something that we hope people understand, is right now we're still working on health care workers in Phase 1A, and hopefully at the health department we'll get in 1B soon. Okay. Yeah, I know you made the point that it's not widespread. So we know there's challenges with the vaccination process. Some of it's logistics, and I know that's being addressed at all levels, federal, state, with Jim Gray, and then here locally, I know Mayor Gordon just put together a committee or a group that's looking at how we do that better. Can you speak to some of the other issues or concerns that's helping, that are hurting the opportunity for folks to get vaccinated? Right now, it's really a supply issue. The demand in Lexington is high, which is fantastic because there's so many people who are on the fence or scared to take it. So we want those people who are hungry for it to be. Okay, okay. We'd like to move to agenda item two, the approval of minutes, which are the minutes from the December 10th, 2020, and January 14th, 2021 meetings. Did everyone have a chance to review those minutes? Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Move approval of December 10, 2020 minutes and January 14, 2021 minutes. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second by Mr. Bell. We got a motion and a second. Any discussions to that motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. It's unanimous. thank you all right next up we're going to skip a little bit we do have some performance bonds and letters of credit i want to see if everyone had a chance to review those and the chair has opened the floor up for a motion for approval for the performance bonds and letters of credit as well mr chair i move for approval of this performance bonds and letter of credit as presented by the staff. I second. Okay, we got a motion and a second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussions to that motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, unanimous. Motion passes. Thank you. All right, next up, postponements and or withdrawals. Advocate staff. Mr. Chair, we have a hands raised from Matt Carter. If you'd like to go ahead and- Yes. Thank you. Mr. Carter, we're going to promote you now. Mr. Carter, you've been promoted. You can now start your video and unmute yourself. This will allow you to address the Planning Commission. Okay, thank you. I don't have a video. You'll just have to hear me talk. If you turn in your agenda to page 4, item F, PLNMJDP 20-84, Ethington and Ethington property tract 1, lots 2 through 4. I'd like to have a postponement to the March 11th hearing. And the reason I'm asking for this is we have another development plan that precedes this one that staff has asked us to get it certified before y'all make a decision on the one I'm currently trying to get approved. So basically, I need to get this other one certified before you hear this one. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone like that? If I may. Yes, sir. If I may. I don't believe Matt is entirely correct in his understanding of the situation. This plan is on the consent agenda today. And what Matt needs to do is get that other plan certified before this plan is certified. so it can stay on the consent be approved yes it's on the consent agenda to be approved you will need to clean up the situation by getting the other one certified prior to this one being certified and you have a year to get this one certified okay so yeah that's that's that's really the situation you're in matt so i don't think you actually need to postpone this plan okay uh tom we we do have a few changes we want to make to this plan too so i think it still would be in our interest to postpone it well and again it depends on the nature of the changes obviously you know minor changes no big deal but if you're planning some big changes then yes staff would agree with you i think they're big enough to where uh it would warrant postpone Okay, well, by all means then, request the postponement. And if I may, Matt, and again, it's out of order, I'm sure, but I was going to query about, just so you know, Matt, about the traffic. When you mentioned or whomever mentioned the other day, the Chick-fil-A was going to be there on the corner. I was thinking about afterwards, the traffic and that stoplight and how they're going to handle all that out of that church and things like that. So I just put that on the table for consideration, Matt, that when the time comes, I'd like some understanding. So thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. If the motion is in order, I'd be happy to do it. I wanted to ask just one more time to make sure there's anyone else having any discussions. about the potential request for postponement for one month. I'm not seeing any. So yes, Mr. Wilson, the floor is open. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone plan MJDP 20-84, Ethington and Ethington property, track one, lots two through four to March 11th. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Ms. Plumlee. Any further discussion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can I ask your procedural question? Yes, sir. Does that automatically take it off the consent agenda? Yes, it does. I've got an answer from Mr. Bailey here. Okay. That's good. He'll take care of that. And sir, when we get to the consent agenda, I will remove that. I'll remove it from the consent agenda. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pam. Okay, Mr. Chair. It looks like Lori Kaley has his hand up next. Would you like to promote him? Yes. Mr. Chair, we're going to promote you now. good afternoon mr chairman members playing commission rory kaylee da partners page two item one planning mjdp 20-29 lexington mall property lot 6a we request an indefinite postponement of this item there's it's been a while that we've been postponing it the owners are just having some difficulties coming to some of those decisions. Okay. So we have a request for an indefinite postponement. Do we have any discussions by the planning members? I'm not seeing any. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a definite postponement of PLNMJDP 2021. We have a motion on the table. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. If there are any other applications that would like to keep those components at this time, please go ahead and digitally raise your hand. Okay, we're going to promote Scott's outfall. Okay. Afternoon, Chairman, Members, Commission. I'd like to direct your attention to page 2 PLN MJDP 2000 57 Griffin Gate Office Park I'd like to request a one month postponement. We are still working with traffic engineering and engineering on the details of the proposed location of the access point. All right. So we got a request for a one-month postponement for this particular agenda item. Any discussions from the commission? Seeing none, there's a motion. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Polk? Move to postpone CLNN JDP 2057 for one month. We got a motion seconded by Ms. Meyer. Not seeing any further discussions. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion is approved unanimously for one month. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm not seeing any further hands, Mr. Bailey. Take it over on the consent agenda. Yes, sir. Thank you. Today we have several items that are available for the consent agenda. These include development plans recommended for conditional approval by the subdivision committee and development plans recommended for re-approval by the subdivision committee. As with all consent agenda items, they are here for your review and are being displayed on your screen. I will go through them. These items include on page three, item D, PLN MJDP 20-00082, Web Properties Unit 1, Region 2, Point, Kroger as amended. This is for the property located at 150 West Lowry Lane, Washington. We also have our next one, BLM-MJDP20-00083 Crossroads Christian Church. This is located on page 4, item E of your agenda and is located at 4176 Todd Road. This also included, since it is located in the expansion area, a memorandum, which you can find in your packet for compliance with the expansion area master plan. plan. It also included the necessitating a posting of a sign, an affidavit of such has been submitted to the staff. The next item, page four, item F, was just removed from your consent agenda. This is PLNMJDP20-00084, Eppington and Eppington property. This will no longer be able to be voted on for the consent agenda. Additionally, we have on page four, item G of your agenda, PLNMJDP 20-00085, James Motor Co., and Catherine M. McBrayer property as amended, which is located at 2440 Richmond Road and 2350 Lake Park Road. Moving on to our reapproval items. We have two on page five, item A, PLN-MJDP 19-00041, Avondale subdivision block B, lots 1, 2, 44, and 45, North Lexington Holdings, for the properties located at 1912, 1914, 1916 and 1918 North Limestone Street. And on page five item B PLN MJDP 19-00066 Masterson Station Center Citation Village as amended for the property located at 248 Ferndale Pass and 2679 Leastown Road. If there is anyone from the public or from the Planning Commission that would like to discuss any elements of any of these plans that have been noted, please raise your hand now and we can remove them from the consent agenda. Sir, I am seeing no hands and thus the six or I'm sorry the five items removing page four item F from the consent agenda are eligible for the consent. Okay, thank you, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Martin, would you like to make a statement? Yes, Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin, you are muted. To be advantageous. It is a memorandum that should be in your packet that is a memorandum of EAMP compliance that is associated with the Crossroads Christian Church. I just wanted to bring that to your attention that as part of your motion to approve the consent agenda, you would be also finding that the Crossroads Christian Church Major Development Plan 20-83 is in fact compliant with the AEMP. Thank you for the additional information. Okay. The floor is open for a motion. or approval of the consent agenda as presented by Mr. Bailey. Mr. Chairman. Either one. Go ahead. Frank. Bill, which one? Who's the oldest? Bill. Frank is. Uncle, you got to go first. I don't ever want to supersede Moses. Go ahead. So who's doing this? I'm going to go with Mr. Wilson. that. Oh, okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to approve the consent agenda as presented with the removal of PLN MJDP-20-64. That's Ethington and Ethington property. We'd like to remove that. The other consent agenda items as stated, but with the plan PLN MJDP-20-83, we also approved findings that are compliant with the AMP. Okay. I'll second. Well, Mr. Paul beat you there. He's a little younger. That's all right. We got a motion and a second. Any further discussion to the motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion unanimous for approval. thank you for the consent agenda. All right. Okay. Next up, we're on the application items here. Page 3, PLN MJD-20-76, Ball Homes Property, Lillian Hunt, Speedway. I know that this is a continuance of our initial conversation back on the 14th of January. It was brought to my attention that we do have several folks that would like to speak either in behalf or against this particular agenda item. So what we would like to do at this point in time is to bring that up is the fact that please if there is any new information we would like to hear that if there is information that was spoken on back on the 14th of January can you limit that as much as you can please just from the staff's time and also the commission members' time. But with that being said, I will open the floor up for staff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Staff is just going to briefly reorient you to the plan to refresh your memory that this is a proposed B-1 development for a Speedway convenience store at Vercels Road and Red Mile Road, the intersection at this point. Again, they're proposing an access point here, which will be a right in right out access point upper sales road, maintaining the full access point in this location onto Red Mile. This does involve two properties. As you all recall, there's an apartment building on the adjoining property where we had considerable discussion about the eventual relocation of those tenants. You can see this long, long rectangular piece that is a part of it. It's going to be maintained as green area with possible detention. They are going to terminate Divine Avenue in this location. They are adding street improvements, turn lane and a sidewalk along this frontage along Red Mile Road. The building in this location is a little over 4,800 square feet. There, I believe, are 26 parking spaces, as you can see. And again, with the pumps and the gas stations, I mean, with the gas pumps and the canopy is, of course, a strong feature on the site. and impacts very much the functionality. And again, I know the Planning Commission heard that at its last hearing, a considerable discussion about the functionality of the site for the fuel trucks and for traffic and cars and that sort of thing. The Planning Commission did express concern based on a lot of public input on the orientation to Versailles Road and Red Mile Road. The applicant has come back with this new plan that you see in their attempt to address your concerns about that presentation to the street. And again, there's a lot going on along the frontage here. There's a lot of existing conditions. There is a bus stop that will have to be relocated. And again, there's detention and easements in this area. All these things are aspects of the site that the applicant will be addressing. And again, staff just wanted to reorient you to the plan. And if you have any questions for us, we'll be happy to answer them. But I believe the applicant, I'm sure, is prepared to present this plan to you. Any questions for Tom? I'm not seeing any hands, but I only see four of us. Okay. Oh, okay. Mr. Nickel? Yes. I cannot. It's not on our Google Drive, so I'm having a hard time pulling up the – I can't pull up the DP on my computer. So is it mislabeled? Does anyone know? There's not a 3C on – Mr. Bailey is looking into that right now for you, Mr. Nickel. It's under Ball Homes. It's under Ball Homes. okay 76 well i don't see it there but i guess mr nickel i'll get that to you as soon as possible is it on the drive though it's on one c ball homes okay gotcha thanks but send it to me again please one c there it is gotcha thanks All right. Okay. Mr. Chair, could we ask that everyone who's associated with the petitioner who would like to be brought into the meeting raise their hands electronically now? Yes. I see Mr. Woodall and Mr. Sweet. Again, ladies and gentlemen, this is just the applicant's team. It is not currently the time for the public to weigh in. Yes, and for the applicant, if you do have any new information from the 14th meeting of January, that will be sufficient. Okay. Can we go ahead, Chairman? Hold one second. Okay. Hold open. Just one second. We're just getting everybody in. Yeah, I raised my hand. My name is Billy Sherrill. I'm an attorney, also the husband of the owner of the property, so I'm available. I may wish to speak. Sir, if you are part of this development team who has submitted this application, that would be within your purview, so long as Mr. Woodall keeps that to a specific time frame. Yes, and what we're looking to do is just keep it down as much as we can. we do know we have a lot of folks that would like to speak and want to be respectful to each and everyone's time given this application so sir we do have one additional sorry to interrupt one from mr rick porter okay uh mr porter are you part of the development team and did you mean yes Yes, he is. He is. Okay. All right. Okay, Mr. Woodall. Okay. Thank you all for hearing us again today. As was alluded to, we've previously heard this matter and some pretty good questions were put to us. And I'm going to try to just address those as quickly as I can and then have our have our team speak to you so we can move on and let those that want to speak. Otherwise, go ahead and do that. Once again, we're not here. This is not a zone map amendment. This is simply a development plan. Mr. Martin has shared the site dynamics with you. Mr. Wilson raised some questions during the last hearing about Commissioner Wilson did about about the tenants that currently live in Mr. and Mrs. Shero's building and what would happen with them and although we know we're not legally obligated with respect to relocation or whatnot we heard that that request loud and clear so what we've what we found out and Mr. Shero like I said, is here to speak as well, Commissioner Wilson, is that we're dealing with, I believe, 12 tenants at this time. All of these folks are on three to six-month leases to begin with. Most of them at this point are on month-to-month leases. Now, what I didn't know, and frankly, I'll apologize, should have known prior to the first hearing was that in our purchase agreement that Marathon Speedway has with the Sherrows, the seller has an additional eight months, so 240 days after closing, whenever that occurs after all this is over, to stay in possession of this property. So Mr. Sherrow will tell you what his plans are with those tenants. So this is not a move out immediately situation whatsoever. this this particular use is as we've previously alluded is absolutely permissible in the b1 zone it's an automobile service station this is going to it's estimated to be over a four million dollar facility so this is one heck of an improvement to this particular location there were some concerns about our existing plan in order to help integrate it more with the neighborhood. So what I will do right now, I'm going to have Rob Sweet, who is on our design team, explain to you the changes that we made. And then Rick Porter is going to discuss why this site has been oriented the way that it is. he'll discuss with you the difference between, you know, stacking those eight pumps versus the linear progression we have them in. I know that there's two particular locations in town right now. At Loudon Avenue and Broadway, the Thornton station has an eight pump stacked dynamic, as does the Speedway out at the corner of Athens and 75. The actual, the Thornton site's actually is smaller than ours, but I want to let Matt jump in here right now and explain the changes that were made to the plan that you're seeing in response to your concerns at the last hearing. Thank you, John. My name is Rob Sweet. I'm with McBridedale. I'm sorry I said Matt. I meant Rob. All right, John. Don't worry. I won't call you. I won't call you by the wrong name, Frank. So, you know, after our meeting back in January, we, you know, kind of went back to the ordinance after hearing what everybody said and basically went through and tightened up what we were looking to do. You know, make sure that all our state, all our development met the standards identified in the ordinance. We then met with Lex Tran and discussed with them on what to do with the bus stop and where we should put that and how that should look and do we need to relocate it or remove it or whatever. Working with them, we determined that we are able to move that, that 65 feet east and we can still maintain it and so we do plan to maintain the stop the existing stop has a trash receptacle next to it as well as a bus stop hole so we're going to relocate all that uh per those suggestions or per the requirements of the for sale small area plan we've incorporated a landscaping feature out front uh it doesn't show up real well in the development plan because it's not a it's in the right of way actually uh but it's a concrete pad for uh community art and you know looking at the burseo small area plan and all the improvements that are there uh it's it is an art it is an art decoration that you know once something is designed or needs to go there that can be placed there we added some additional landscaping and then some other improvements just real brief to reiterate you know we are making a significant amount of of improvements along red mile road uh widening that out beginning the prop the transportation engineering plan to widen red mile uh it's my understanding it already happened to the south at the south end of red mile we're looking to start this on the north so that would be adding a turn lane to the site uh adding a new signal um and basically starting that process for the city of lexington so as these properties either redevelop or change hands or whatever that case may be that right away then and that roadway then will be in place. We've also widened the sidewalks. We're also proposing to widen those sidewalks per the recommendations of that Versailles small area plan to eight feet on both sides, you know, and adding the pedestrian connection to the bike lane, or I'm sorry, to the store and then a bike rack as well off that pedestrian connection. and i'm sure rick will touch on this but just kind of setting them up uh you know we kept the layout the same and part of that reasoning was we want to keep the activity focused to the streets and and the lighting and the noise and all that stuff to the streets and leave the areas of the site that are adjacent to the residential passive if you will um and then we've also obtained some information on the apartments which i think john went through so i'm going to hand this off to rick and let him talk about the design. Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay? Yes, sir. Awesome. Just to introduce myself, I'm Rick Porter. I've been with Speedway for 33 years. I know I don't look that old, but we'll go with that. I am the operations region manager for Lexington. I actually have three district managers that many of you may have run into or know who supervise our stores in Lexington. I do love Lexington, by the way. Great place to work, great place to tour and shop and to live, obviously. But the layout of this store, the dive in dispensers, as we call them, which would be the single dispensers instead of the stack dispensers. dispensers. It is the safest for our customers, our vendors, and our employees. It allows one person to fuel up at a time as opposed to the stacked dispensers where customers would have to weave around to get to an open pump. Also having eight pumps or eight dispensers like Thornton's in our Athens Boonesboro store definitely provides ample amount of safe fueling spots for the amount of traffic that Vercel's Road and Red Mile brings. Our entrances and our exits that are laid out by our engineers are definitely the safest. There are a couple advantages to having the store and the pumps or dispensers face Vercel's Road versus Red Mile Road. Number one, Vercel's Road has 127% more cars than Red Mile Road based on traffic counts. So that provides easier and safer access from the busiest street off of Vercel's Road. Secondly, positioning the store in a canopy facing the busiest road acts as a buffer, reducing any noise that may come from Vercel's Road to the residents behind us. So that definitely buffers some of that noise that Vercel's Road may bring. And then just lastly here, and feel free to ask me any questions. Being around as long as I have been, I've opened several new stores with this same layout throughout Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Southern Ohio. And I've had great success with the safety on our driveways. So we'll leave it at that unless anybody has any questions. And thank you for letting me speak. Thank you. David Daffrin, are you there, please? David? He's there. Okay. David, are you there? See you down, the further down. There we go. There we go. he is on sir but uh we are currently seeing that he is currently muted let's see david are you unmuted now okay can y'all hear me now yeah you're echoing now okay yeah i was dialed in on my phone um i guess it wasn't coming through okay just a quick question for you could you just share with the commission quickly uh what type of investment uh in our community you envision time you with land acquisition costs and the build out of the store um that that's a good question john i you know as far as total costs that we've put into this so far um you know we've we've put in over i believe it's two hundred thousand dollars just in the overall development of this you know we are very interested in this location and you know we're trying to ultimately you know figure out the the best layout that meets the planning staff and Commission's ordinance and guidance, but also, too, that, you know, doesn't sway too far from our standard. And so, you know, we've put in a considerable amount of time. I want to say, you know, we started this project back in, I think it was January or February of last year. So it's been a long time coming. And, you know, we're, as you know, we're still here and very interested and, you know, hope that the commission and takes into consideration these changes and, you know, the efforts that we've put in up to this point. What do you expect your total construction cost to be just a approximation when the store is completed? Oh, it's, it's going to be over 4 million that, like you said, probably close to 4.1. You know, we're still at, you know, evaluating costs, but, you know, as we go through the development process, that's, you know, that's part of our job is to, you know, figure out what changes are going to need to be made and factor in those costs and timelines. So, yeah, as you mentioned, around $4.1 million is what we're looking at right now. Okay. I think I'll just stop there and ask if anyone has any questions for us at this time. Okay. I've got a hand up, Ms. Plumlee? Yes, thank you. At the juncture of Frisales Road and Red Mile, there's a detention area. Is that underground? And if so, whatever it is, is it in the right-of-way? Eric Boyd, could you answer that question, please? Or Rob? You certainly could. This is Eric Porter with CESO. We had looked into addressing the detention that is in that area and had conversations with Vaughn and I apologize I can't remember Vaughn's last name but we had conversations with Vaughn about addressing the existing storm drainage detention that's in that area and it um yeah taking that detention that is in that area and moving it into our detention basin that is on the back side of our site and collecting that and moving it over there so that it's not um affecting our our layout and our uh ability to meet the the setback requirements for the city code and it is not in the right of way commissioner plumbly no oh bottom line not in the right of way okay thank you frank yes uh mr woodall i guess i'll address this question to you yes sir mr porter talked about eight fueling pumps actually there's 16 fueling stations isn't that right well there's there's eight dispensers i guess there's one on each one on each side just like just like loudon avenue and broadway except ours is linear and not stacked okay the other question i have was as piggybacks on miss plumley's is that you're going to take the the tension and move it to the back and then you're going to put your storage tanks where the tension is is that right that's an engineer's question i don't want to answer that and be wrong uh rob or eric again No, sir. The storage tanks are no longer in that area. We've moved the storage tanks over to the other side by the entrance on Versailles. So that gets to my third question. The question is that the trucks that are fueling will come in off Versailles Road and the fueling tanks will be on that side. And then will they be able to back up and go out on Red Mile? Sure, they can't turn around and go back out on Versailles Road. No, they will go out on Red Mile. Thank you. That's my question. Thank you. Mr. Nickel, you had your hand raised too. Do you still have the question? Yes. Okay, as I'm looking at the parcels 1318 and 1320 Bursales Road, I had to go to the PVA to try to find where the residential lots are close to this location. And those are the residential lots up Divine Avenue. Is that what we see when it says denote 10-foot recorded setback adjacent to the R2 zone? Is that the R2 zone we're talking about off the Vine Avenue? I believe so, Commissioner. I believe that you're looking at the right thing. It's a 12-unit apartment house directly behind 1318. Okay. And then 1318 is B3. I mean, excuse me, not 1318. That's 641 is B3 as well. Commissioner Nickel? Yes. Rob Sweet, you are correct. So the residential areas are along Divine Avenue. So it would be those two parcels that you can see. Parcel, my eyes deceive me. 106, 107. Yes, yes. Owned by Miller and Camacho and Doyle. okay got you because when i'm looking at on the pva when you put the zoning overlay that whole corner is b3 and your surrounding property is b3 other than 107 and 106 divine so i just wanted to confirm that there are two r2 properties that are connected to this and just one quick comment as well really appreciate the eight foot sidewalks because we were pushed hard to get six foot sidewalks it's nice to see people doing even more than that especially on that versales road which gets a lot of foot traffic so the eight foot um sidewalks i think are a great idea mr martin um you want to say anything i know you got up to the podium there oh i i was just going to address a question, but I think Rob was correct. I wrote that condition. So yes, that's what it was intended. It's a recorded setback and we just want to see it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any further questions from the commission members for the applicant at this time? All right. Mr. Paul, thank you. I guess I'd like to understand the idea about the public art installation and where it is and how that is intended to assist the development to be sensitive to the context. so the idea behind the public art was seeing the recommendations from that thoroughfare plan for versales road and if you look through there they identify three or four major intersections along there and this is one of the intersections that are identified in the plan part of that is is they have space denoted for public artwork and so what we would do is we would put a basically a five by five concrete pad with some landscaping around it and it would basically be right at the right at the intersection so it would be behind the sidewalk and would be at the intersection as recommended in the plan so is it shown in the plan it is not showing on the on the plan uh we will provide that in our in our more formal documents as we get through there but we do intend to provide that to provide that requirement to meet that requirement of the plan as a condition as a condition there's a there is a little um object on the plan that's not noted it's uh halfway between the pumping station and the eight foot sidewalk on on red mile road what is that object I don't know if I could answer that one. I believe that what you're seeing there is a catch basin, an existing catch basin. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Polk. Ms. Plumlee? Yes. Mr. Chair, I just had a procedural question. do we have the same folks in attendance with the commission this time as we did the last hearing the same i don't think miss mr nichols were you here last last hearing on the 14th no i was not i think you were i was not present mr chair okay what does that mean we're going to review it and then i would double back to my proletarian mr wilson there to see well first of all one of the questions has did you all make any effort to catch up or listen to the tape or review the video that took place from the last meetings i did not review the video just the development plan my answer is the same from the google from the google drop that's all i did Okay. Did you talk to the staff about it? Did you have any questions that you talked to the staff about or anything? Okay. No. Okay. All right. How many people did we have at the last meeting? That's what we're checking right now. Okay. My next question was going to be, if Mr. Nickel and Mr. Davis is not here and not able to speak on this, do we have quorum? That's a question I had, too. Thank you, Ms. Plumlee. You're welcome. Right now. so we would still have a quorum if Mr. Nickel or Mr. Davis are not allowed to vote on this particular agenda item okay so Mr. Chair will Mr. Commissioner Nickel and I if are we allowed to vote today if we feel prepared that's what I'm checking with legal thank you yes sir thank you yeah my next and we can go to Tracy Jones who should be calling in right now and Miss Jones we are going to allow you to speak now if you could unmute yourself okay can you guys hear me yes okay I'm having a horrible technical day. So, um, Zach had contacted me earlier about this. And what I told him was, you know, since this is a development plan, if, if they feel like they have all of the information from reviewing documents and things that they're fully surprised about the circumstances, um, then they can probably vote. Now that might be different in a zone change where you continue something. But generally, I think in the past, it's been the policy of this committee or this commission that if someone isn't really up to speed on what happened or doesn't understand all the complexities of it, they've generally abstained from voting. So it's kind of up to them whether or not they feel like the review they have of the documents gives them the full picture of what you all are discussing today or they're missing some information. Okay, so we're going to leave it up to the commission individual member themselves to make that determination. Just to clarify with Ms. Jones, I mean, I fully understand the development plan and understand how to read the development plan. I feel like, so it's a personal decision whether or not we feel prepared to vote is what I'm hearing. Yes. Okay. And Mr. Davis, sounds like you had that same conversation twice. So now it's live. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah. No, that's fine. Are you okay with moving forward? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Blumley, any further questions? No. Okay. All right. We'll move over to citizens' comments. Oh, excuse me. you mr wilson yeah one uh one other question for the uh it's not a really a question well it is a little bit of a question first of all let me say that i appreciate the attention that was given to the tenants irrespective of the fact that this is not a legal requirement i do appreciate that and i think that models being a good business uh uh corporation as such how many tenants were supposed to be impacted by that if i got by the what commissioner you broke up there right at the end. Okay. Well, I was trying to find out. Well, I don't know what you heard, what you didn't. I said, thank you, first of all. I heard, yes, sir. Okay. You heard the thank you part. Okay. The final question was, how many tenants were going to be impacted? Billy, you want to answer that since you're here? You're the landlord. Yeah, I can answer that. My name's Billy Shero, and my wife and I own that building. Currently, we have 11 tenants in the building. That's a 12-unit apartment building, and there are 11 tenants in the building. Okay. As a follow-up question to that, I didn't catch the 200-day. What was that about? If you could clarify that a little bit. Yes, sir. I can do that. In the actual sales contract between my client and the owners of that property, the Sharrows, there is a specific clause that the sellers have 240 days continued occupancy of the property after closing. So that's an additional eight months before they have to actually vacate the property. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. All right. And thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for asking. And I'm sorry I couldn't answer that for you last time around. It's okay. That's what we're here for. Yeah. Does any commission members have any additional questions? for the applicant at this time? Not seeing any. Next we will move over to citizens comments. I would like to do on this case, first we will do the, anyone they wanna speak on behalf of this agenda item, you can do so by raising your hand. But we also would like to put a time limit on each individual person. We will have a time clock of two minutes for each person to speak. So first up, if anyone wants to speak on behalf of this agenda item, please do so by raising your hand. Okay. Again, ladies and gentlemen, this is for those who are speaking on behalf of this application, not in opposition. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure how to raise my hand. I don't see that option on my phone. but again my name is Billy Sherrill and I would like to make a brief statement if I might on behalf of the plan oh Mr. Sherrill you you're a part of the applicant so these are the citizens comments at this moment okay so do we have any hands raised we'll see no hands raised okay all right now anyone who wants to speak in opposition of this application, please do so by raising your hand. All righty. Okay. Our first raised hand is listed as Paula. I am assuming that is Ms. Paula Singer. We're going to allow you to speak now. You can go ahead. Thank you very much. Commissioner, Chair Forrester, my speech is about four minutes. If you might indulge me, I would appreciate it. I bring new information. As long as it's new information, we would do our best to provide that to you. But if it's not, I would have to let you know out of respect. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. You have this letter in front of you. It begins with the motion for continuance. If you wish to follow along. The motion for continuance at last month's hearing asked the applicant, quote, to look at the scale of what they're doing and how it affects the site view of Versailles Road. And could they tweak their development plan to where it wouldn't be overpowering from Versailles Road or Red Mile? Is there any other configuration they could do that would make it less obtrusive? End quote. In looking at the plan that comes before you today, I hope you will agree that little has changed to make the plan less overpowering or obtrusive. The current design is, understandably, preferred by the applicant because it increases visibility to passing for sales road traffic. This configuration rests on the applicant's interpretation of the definition of lot line front in the zoning ordinance, which states, quote, Lot line front means in the case of a lot abutting upon only one street or alley, the line separating such lot from such street. In the case of any other lot, the owner shall, for the purpose of this zoning ordinance, have the privilege of electing any street lot line as the front lot line, provided that such choice, in the opinion of the Division of Planning, will not be injurious to the existing or to the desirable future development of adjacent properties. End quote. Careful reading of the lot line front definition makes it clear that the term privilege and not, for example, option is meant for the review to proceed in such manner that ensures the use of this front lot line is not injurious to existing or desirable future development and requires the ruling of the Planning Commission. The applicant asks that you agree with them and establish Red Mile Road as the front lot line and by doing so grant them the privilege of allowing the 28-foot wide easternmost edge of the 193-foot long canopy running parallel to Versailles Road as the structure that conforms to the 20-foot setback line. Clearly, granting this Red Mile front lot line privilege, thereby allowing an oversized development that does not meet the B-1 20-foot setback along its primary for sales road property line, is not the intent of the updated B-1 ordinance meant to strengthen neighborhoods and enhance pedestrian experience. Clearly, it is not in the spirit of the setback requirement. Clearly, it is injurious to the nearby small businesses such as South Hill Gallery, Hair Jordan Beauty Salon, and the residential neighborhoods such as the nearby Halls Lane cul-de-sac by overpowering this gateway corridor with an auto-centric development that, while permitted, must be thoughtfully designed so as to provide maximum pedestrian and neighborhood business experience. The configuration of the 16 pumps and canopy, the entrance door to the 4,600 square foot convenience store, the parking layout, the speedway signage, the proposed concrete pad and pylon sign on Versailles Road, all lead to a reasonable conclusion that Versailles Road is the front lot line and using Red Mile as such cannot be a privilege granted by this commission. Surely on 1.72 acres of land, there is a design configuration that will allow for a gas station convenience store of ample size that will not be injurious to the future development of this gateway intersection through its obtrusive and overpowering design. And I am concerned that Mr. Nickel and Mr. Davis do not have a complete understanding of this complex development plan, and they weren't here at the last meeting, and I do ask them to recuse. Thank you very much. You're welcome, Ms. Singer. Thank you for your time, and your comments have been noted. So next up, we have James. We're going to allow you to speak now. The person who's listed as James. You can go ahead. And please, as you are giving your comments, identify yourself and identify your address in town. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Hi, my name is Jimmy Early. My family and I live at 114 Halls Lane, which Paula mentioned. It's less than a block from the proposed development, and we are deeply concerned about this development for several reasons. One, we have a two-and-a-half-year-old son who's enrolled at Family Care Center for daycare. It's only four-tenths of a mile from our house, up Red Mile Road, not Harry Sykes Boulevard. We'd love to be able to walk our son to his daycare to spend more time with him outdoors, get some much-needed exercise, and raise him in a city culture that values modes of transportation beyond cars. This business is not only car-centric as a gas station, but it leaves our streets sandwiched between three large gas stations with cars pulling in and out with limited space to maneuver. Regardless of what changes are made to sidewalk infrastructures, the fact is that the purpose of this business is to attract more cars to fill up their tanks. Therefore, it is a traffic hazard and it's incongruent with planned corridor improvements. All my family wants is to be able to walk safely across the road in our neighborhood. If the purpose of corridor improvements is to increase our city's reliance on cars, then how is this development not future blight? When we purchased our home two years ago, we reviewed the small area plan here and we're very excited that there are going to be improvements to pedestrian safety on Versailles Road. There was a vision providing for more affordable housing and smaller businesses along this corridor. The proposed development violates the vision and goals of not just the small area plan, but also the city's comprehensive plan by increasing congestion and negatively impacting walkability and raising affordable housing. The proposed development is contrary to the vision of B1 zoning that neighbors laid out in the small area plan. We know that zoning has a profound impact on our quality of life in Lexington. We have seen how histories of redlining still impact marginalized communities, and we will be working for decades to reverse those impacts. Often, we have zoning language that is not specific enough to prevent harm, But the purpose of the Planning Commission is to interpret the zoning and land use codes and to think beyond this year and time to the long term impacts and development decisions. We urge you to think beyond the nose of the next few months and consider how saying yes to this proposal will impact me, my son, and our neighbors who already live on the margins in the city. This is one of the most racially diverse neighborhoods in our city, and we deserve an improved quality of life like anyone else. This development is in opposition to that vision which our neighbors spent years developing through the small area plan. We asked, will this commission be one that promotes health and equity or one that allows for the destruction of affordable housing during a pandemic and for the construction of the ninth gas station within a two mile radius of our community? You have the authority to vote in line with our community vision and for our future health. Let's work towards prevention instead of perpetuating urban planning injustices. Thank you all very much for your time. Thank you, Jimmy. Okay, next up, Blake Hall. Mr. Hall, we'll allow you to speak now. You can go ahead. All right. My name is Blake Hall. I live at 36 Richmond Avenue. From the last meeting, it seems everyone was in agreement that this was a pretty terrible proposal. But the commission might have its hands tied on what it can say no about. So instead of focusing on how terrible it is that the applicant is looking to remove 12 units and displace tenants during a housing shortage in a pandemic, I'm instead going to focus on the arguments that I think the commission can make in order to deny this. Building a large gas station on the corner of two arterials with such proximity to downtown would be a nuisance and burden on all non-car traffic. adding a turn lane would not only increase crossing times for pedestrians crossing red mile it would also introduce i assume that's going to be introduced into the existing bike lane causing bikes and cars a needless conflict point i also have to vehemently disagree with staff's judgment that this proposal somehow improves the pedestrian experience first red mile has no sidewalks, so it will be a sidewalk to nowhere. Eight-foot sidewalks are nice, but they don't counteract the negative experience of having to walk along 16 gas pumps and having to negotiate their dangerous driveway entries. Speaking specifically to the Versailles Road right-in, right-out entry, do you realize how dangerous these are for pedestrians who have the audacity to approach from the right? Drivers' attentions will be focused on vehicular traffic coming from the left. We already see this plenty of places in our city. Their proposed bus stop, which has since changed since I've seen it's 65 east, so I'm guessing that's away from Red Mile, still requires, by adding the two driveways, it's still not a great improvement for any users. Also, if you use said bus stop and tried to go to the so-called convenience store, you would still have to cross to both of their driveways to get to the pedestrian access or navigate their parking lot. The same thing can be said for the bike racks, which adding them would be commendable if it was actually in a usable location. Right now, only those crossing Versailles Road on Red Mile would be able to safely turn in without having to navigate crossing car lanes or the parking lot. I believe all of these are valid reasons to deny this proposal that staff didn't consider even if it is allowed by the zoning. I know the commission is hamstrung by the law and there's worry that you can only approve the plan but one look at this from the perspective of anyone that isn't a car user will show how much of a burden and nuisance it will be. Please deny this proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall. So next up to speak is council member LaGrie. Council member, we're going to allow you to speak now. You can go ahead. Okay. Thank you all so much. Can you hear me? Yes. Excellent. I'm here as the council member representing the third district here in Lexington. I know that council member Reynolds will also be speaking and I am speaking on behalf of community members who have written to me in my capacity as a representative. First of all thank you for the opportunity to speak chair and thank you for the updates on this project thus far. I know that you have begun to address some of the concerns by our residents however what I would like to do right now is to reiterate the neighborhood desire for more walkability for more community centric planning and and especially for pedestrian-centric plans. The people who have written to me have spoken about the redevelopment of Red Mile and Versailles Roads and their desire to have a community-centric experience when we are thinking about the bigger picture of these corridors. So what they're talking about is more connectivity, diversified housing stock, and multimodal transportation designs and safety. So I'm here as an advocate for our bigger picture, long range plans for these areas and for our community members who have written in and like those who have previously spoken in this meeting, who are thinking about what they want from their communities beyond the current moment and beyond car centric practices. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Next up, Mr. Walter Gaffield. Mr. Gaffield, we'll allow you to speak now. You can go ahead. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. I live at 2001 Bamboo Drive. Neighborhood Council recognizes that what you're dealing with is not a zone change, but it's a development plan. And I wanted to call to your attention really the credentials of Paula Singer, who spoke earlier. She's been president of the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association. She's been a member of the Corridors Commission representing Versailles Road. And she was one of the most active participants in the small area plan for Versailles Road. So what I'd like to present to you is that she really knows what she's talking about when she says that there's a problem with a setback plan. And I think also a problem with the facing of the of the of the store. The neighborhood council supports Ms. Singer in her presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Will. Next up is Council Member Reynolds. Council Member Reynolds will allow you to speak now. You can go ahead. Thank you and thank you all for taking so much time to review this issue and thank you Chair for allowing a public comment. I think that's really important. I know that you all have been working on changing this plan to in regards to what was said at the last meeting. And I do appreciate that. Today, I speak on behalf of my constituents once again. And since the last meeting, I have spoken with many more people about their concerns. And some of them couldn't be here today because they work during the day, but they wanted to be here. And I just want to say that I think when we're looking at the comp plan and we're looking at the small area plan, even this isn't a zone change, we have to take into consideration what the goals of those things are. And when we look at development, we want to know, is it good for the community? Is it serving? is it just is it is its only purpose um you know profit or are we taking into consideration its surroundings and I live very close uh to this corner actually myself um so I'm speaking for myself as well and I know that there are lots of pedestrians on Versailles Road all the time and it is scary often driving because sometimes you're afraid you might hit them. And it concerns me that there would be another gas station that brings more vehicles in and out of that area of the corridor with that right entry there. I have to agree, it doesn't seem safe and it doesn't seem considerate of the people that are walking and riding their bikes every day on that corridor. When we look at the future plan for Versailles Road, we've already started a piece of the renovation of making the sidewalk safer, a bike lane, and then hopefully adding more aesthetic things. And the goal is to continue that plan all the way down to Oliver Lewis. and having a gas station there is not something that is goes along with that plan when we already have nine gas stations in a very very small radius and so I just have to echo the concerns of of everybody else here I'm I'm really concerned about losing housing but moreover I'm concerned about a business that is not serving the people that live right there on the corridor. And so I just, I have to echo that and know that as we make decisions in regards to development, how are we going to do that moving forward? And I just ask that in the future, even if it's not a zone change, that the community be taken more into consideration. Thank you. Thank you. And one more is Ms. Amy Clark. Ms. Clark, I do know that you sent over a letter to staff and commission members, did they have access to that letter? Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure everyone has that. But you're up and time has started when you start speaking. Ms. Clark, you can go ahead now. Okay. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Loud enough. Okay. I'm not sure what my letter to you is called in the drive, but I also furnished a great deal of material because I want you to have evidence on which to base your decision. And it wouldn't just be from my anecdote, but it would be from the plans this community has made for a long time for this critical corner, both corridors being important. I would suggest that you look in your drive and find something called page 25, digital page 27, because that gives you a cross section of the vision for this particular section of Versailles Road with the multimodal improvements that are intended, that are planned, that were voted support by the council. And I want to begin the argument by saying I couldn't agree more with Ms. Singer that your question is, what are we calling the front of this lot? Are we according, are you as commission members who make that judgment, are you according the owner the privilege of saying that the 28.5 feet of the side edge of the gas canopy makes that a building that meets the 20-foot maximum setback? back. And that's why we're calling Red Mile the front yard. Okay. So I would agree with Ms. Singer that a reasonable man would assume that the front is where all the action is. There's a lot in my letter. I won't go through it all, but I'd like to direct your attention to some important materials. The issue here is if you decide that it is the owner's privilege to call the side edge of the canopy the front of the building that defines the front yard, you're saying that a canopy is a building. The front yard is defined by the building that is 20 foot distant. The actual building is much farther away, the store. It doesn't even have a door, a pedestrian entrance along Red Mile. And you're saying that a structure is a building, and you're saying that they're using it as if it's a front. And you have to decide whether or not it will be injurious to the future development and the present development in the area. And that's where the other material that I have furnished you comes in. This community has plans for both those corridors. It has a well-established, long-established under-construction plan for Versailles Road, and you're looking at the cross-section of that plan, and that cross-section is not in agreement with the pedestrian improvements and the cross-section offered by the applicant on the development plan. It offers less right-of-way. It's not the same. The development plan also is not acknowledging a 10-foot dedication for a right-turn lane made in the 80s and accepted by the city. So there should be actually another 10 feet accorded the right-of-way on Versailles as you're turning the corner. That could be very welcome either for a bus stop or for a lane that's not the sole through lane. And there's also a $100,000 design study for next year, for 2022, that is planned. It's in the short-term tip plan for Red Mile. This is a wonderful multimodal improvements plan. It's to go all the way from Virginia Avenue through Red Mile through Forbes, to go all the way from Limestone to Leastown Road. And I would argue that Red Mile is, in fact, probably our best example today of transit-oriented development. It is already the high-density residential, the burgeoning high-density residential, the bus, and it badly needs pedestrian improvements. There isn't much in this plan that would foster that, and there's a whole lot that stands in conflict with it. On Red Mile, the access point has always been right in, right out. On this plan, it's proposed to be full access. It's about 200 feet from the intersection with a major arterial versus sails. To have left turns going in and out there to this gas station is highly problematic. I was not clear what was said. I understand the gas tanks are moved over to the inner side of the lot. But Ms. Comley asked the question whether there was something underground that is private improvements within the right-of-way area. And I would ask the question, what I see is underground storage for the detention basins, the stormwater detention. And it is indeed in the right-of-way. I think I would ask you to really give much more careful attention to both cross sections in the right of way before considering approval of this plan. It stands against the public welfare in our plans for transportation. Thank you for your time. You're welcome. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Now, also, Ms. Clark, you had asked for in the Google Drive, your information documentation that you provided is located under A. Clark in the Google Drive for commission members if you are not able to locate that. All right. So, does we have anyone else that they want to speak against this agenda item? I do not see any of this one. Okay. So, we're going to move it into the rebuttal stage. Applicant? Yes, sir. Thank you. I'm going to ask Rob Sweet to address the access issues that were brought up, and I'll address the other remaining issues. sounds good john so yeah and with the plan and and you know right now we have two uses here one's an apartment complex the other one's a former fast food restaurant that likely if it were to be reused or brought in it would continue on as that use unless somebody else buys it or does something else with it so the fast food restaurant creates generates a whole lot of other traffic. The one thing you got to remember about a gas station is that we are capturing traffic. So we're not a, we're traffic capture. We're not a traffic producer. It's a little different. There's two different styles there. I can't really get into it because I don't know that much about it. Probably there's other folks on the call with our team that can probably talk better about it. But again, we're a traffic capture. So we're looking to capture the trips on the roadway. The other item that we need to look at too is there are some concerns about the driveways. We know that KYTC is doing an improvement project along Versailles Road that's going to clip left turns to head westbound on Versailles. We're also eliminating one driveway, the driveway for the former fast food restaurant, and we're taking the other driveway and we're shifting it as far as we can from the intersection. The driveway on Red Mile, that's going to stay in relatively the same location. We feel with these two access points, this is going to give our customers enough circulation to both get in and out of the in and out of the development john what else do i need to go over with that you're muted thank you thank you ron appreciate it um a lot of these comments well most of these comments are all uh as if this property as if you were asking for a zone change we're not not this prop the use we're seeking to put this property to is a permitted use per the zoning ordinance the use we're putting it to is completely compliant with the subdivision regulations and it's been recommended by approval for staff we've had this last minute hail mary if you will to try to derail this by bringing up a alleged right-of-way dedication uh that was brought to our knowledge yesterday so never been never been brought up in this entire process that i'm aware of and most most recent plat in 1994 um does not uh map or delineate that particular dedication and here's why and this is kind of where it gets in my wheelhouse first part of my career i worked with on behalf of the transportation cabinet prosecuting condemnation cases all over the the commonwealth it was a great experience and i learned all kinds of stuff about right-of-way. Versailles Road is a state roadway. It's a state road. So for whatever reason, the state of Kentucky vis-a-vis the transportation cabinet sometimes delegates its right-of-way authority to the city of Lexington or other municipalities. And so back in 1984, when Scotty Basler was governor, excuse me, mayor, I'm sorry, there was a dedication or first of all the process is three parts first there's a resolution which has to be passed by the governmental authority declaring that this that the property is needed for a public purpose and what it is then if there's an agreement there may be an acquisition plat which i think is what you have attached on your drive which will show that particular area. Then if the project actually comes into fruition, at some point that property has to be transferred to the transportation cabinet, to the state of Kentucky. Okay. So this was 37 years ago. The project never happened and staff can speak to this issue if they like, but I believe district seven and my counterparts there that I spoke with yesterday will say, and did say that as far as the Commonwealth of Kentucky is concerned, they don't own this property. That's why that dedication is not an issue. If they wanted to come back for some reason and use this property, they had to start the condemnation process all anew because there's no deed. Even if there's a settlement amicably by agreement of the parties by the owner, which is the condemnee, and the city, the Condemnor, there has to be a deed. If there's a trial to a verdict, which I've done a number of, at the end of that trial, there has to be a deed. The reason being, the Commonwealth has to have a roster of what they own and what they don't. Like I said, Versailles is a state roadway. It may be under city maintenance or some portion, but it's still a state road. So that dedication you heard about is a red herring. And if anybody wants to, on staff, or Tracy wants to disagree with me on that. I'll listen, but like I said, I think the law is very clear. You got to have deed transfer property in this state. So other than that, John, can you all hear me? Yes. I just wanted to chime in a little bit too, you know, about some of the public concerns as well as the council members. We definitely appreciate y'all's feedback and you know we're we're not here to go against necessarily what the public does not want um you know our we're the business of convenience i know you know there was mentioned that you know we're in car uh executing car eccentric practices which you know i can't argue against that but you know ultimately we we're in the business of convenience and you know ultimately with everything that's going on with the pandemic and just in general, the housing shortage, you know, people are in need of convenience now more than ever. And so I would, you know, entertain you to keep that in mind. And then, you know, more importantly, as far as the safety concerns in our driveways, I would just like to point out, you know, the right in, right out off of Versailles. The reason why that it is a right in right out is for safety reasons. You know, we don't want cars traveling plan east. I know that's not the direction, but if you're looking at the plan and they're traveling plan east, you know, you don't want pedestrians having to look, you know, both ways and know if a car is going to be turning in off of Versailles Road and have, you know, be worrying about getting hit. So I, you know, I would argue against that the driveway on Versailles is a right in, right out for safety reasons. And just like to recap on, you know, like Rick Porter had mentioned earlier, this is the safest layout that we have. We've got a lot of experience with this and, you know, we do this layout for a reason. We don't do it just because it's the most profitable. It's because it's the safest. And that's at the end of the day, that's our number one concern is the safety and welfare of the community and the customers that come in to do business with us. So that's all. I just wanted to add that in. OK, thank you, David. John, this is Billy Sherrill. I'd like to make a brief statement, please, if I might. Yes, sir. is he in cheryl uh as i said earlier my wife and i have owned that building since 2013 and because of the way the building sits of course it sits uh parallel with for sales road it's fairly long building and there's a very narrow driveway that goes in and the parking lot as a result of that the parking lot in the rear is uh pretty secluded it's hidden from red mile because of a pretty large hill on the east side of the lot, and the building pretty much shields it. So as a result of that, we've had a lot of issues back there, and this kind of goes to the safety of what the current situation is. We've had a lot of issues back there with the homeless people back in the fence line. We've had to clean out all that brush because in the summertime warm weather, they'd go out there and camp out, and that's been a recurring problem. We've seen drug deals go down in the back, and that's been a recurring problem. The local prostitutes periodically decide that the parking lot is a nice secluded area, and so they'll go back there and conduct their business. And we call the police, and they'll come, and they'll clear it up for a while, and then they're back. Our maintenance man had his vehicle stolen from the parking lot. So I realize that a service station might not be on everyone's wish list as far as what's on that property. But in terms of safety and improvement to the neighborhood, I think you're going to find that a service station with a nice open area and parking lot is going to be much safer than what's there now because it's an ongoing problem. We use security cameras and nothing seems to work. everybody thinks it's a safe place to go and do bad things. So I just wanted to throw that in, in terms of the overall safety of the neighborhood and how, and what happens on that property now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cheryl. Staff. Tom, do you want to say anything additional? No. Yes, sir, but I am I unmuted? Yes, sir. Yes, sir, but staff would like to go last after you heard from everyone else in rebuttal. So I don't know who else is participating in the rebuttal. Ms. Clark apparently is raising her hand. They see that on my screen there, Tom. Their hand raised. Yeah. Well, they got State Mitz, Mr. Woodall. Just to close, Commissioner and Chairman, thank you. You know, look, I've lived in this community all my life, and I've driven down for sales all my life. My family's construction company is right over there close. I've been to the chicken restaurant. I don't know how many times to pick up food for, you know, guys my dad sent me to do and all that other stuff. But Speedway has been my privilege to represent this company all over the state. And, you know, I know that they do business in 32 different states. They've got thirty nine hundred different stores. They're just a they're just a top flight corporate citizen. And, you know, this process, in my mind, it worked like it's supposed to. You know, it's a development plan, so you would think, okay, it's a simple process. But we came to the first hearing and realized we had some work to do, and we did that. And, you know, I understand there's just certain people we're not going to make happy, folks, and that's all there is to it. But Speedway's got 21 locations here in this city, and they've been a good corporate citizen for us. to have somebody that wants to come in here and build a $4 million plus facility and make some substantial improvements to this particular intersection as if Mr. Parker, our traffic engineer, is there. He would tell you that, made those statements at the subdivision committee. So we just ask for your vote on this so we can move on. I mean, property is properly zoned. We've complied with whatever regulation there is to comply with, and we've done everything staff has asked us to do. Thank you, Mr. Woodall, for your comments and the applicant. Thank you. We will move over to the citizens' rebuttal stage and comments. And Amy Clark, you were up first with your hand raised, so I want to make sure I don't hold you any longer. Ms. Clark, you may go ahead. Thank you. I hate to wave my hand frantically, but I don't really know what you can see in here. I simply want to respond to the new information presented by the applicant. And I would begin by saying I would be the first to acknowledge that it's not a question of forbidding a principle permitted use here. It's a question of the design of a development. That's what you're reviewing as a development plan. It's a permitted use. The B1 ZODA in 2013 had as its special object differentiating neighborhood business as a zone from the others. And one of the observations made was that most of the uses are the same throughout the zones. What they used to distinguish it was, in fact, elements of design. And one of the cardinal elements was to shorten the permitted front yard, to bring the building closer to the street, to be able to involve pedestrians and cyclists and others on a human scale. They thought that appropriate for the neighborhood business zone. it's possible that the 10 foot strip that was dedicated to the city to lfucg in the 80s 84 i think it was is the least of the injuries to the larger corridor and its plans for and actualized and in-place elements for multimodal use. What I would say about it is, as far as the records can tell us, that I have been able to find, and I have asked others who are skilled in this matter, to look for me. LFUCG owns that land. It's a state road, certainly for the state to enjoy the use of it for the road, it would have to be acquired by the state. But LFUCG received the dedication by an ordinance that's in your drive, and they have not abandoned it. There is no record that the city has abandoned that land. There's also no motion, I'm sorry, no mention on the second of the development plans, that 10 foot strip is found and then on the third of the development plans called the second amended development plan that would be the one that is currently in force that you would replace if you should approve this development plan in its stead on the second amended development plan in the purpose of the amendment there is no mention of that right-of-way dedication being restored to the property and i think you know from reviewing development plans that if a plan is amended it has to mention all the amendments in its purpose and if they are not mentioned and listed in the purpose of the amendment they aren't part of the amendment And finally, I'm not sure I was clear. Red Mile is currently a write-in, write-out access point. I think it should remain so, at least until we have the guidance of next year's design study. It was put as a right in, right out many years ago in 1975 when the road was built by the state and owned by the state. At that time, the entire southbound width of the road, it was to double in southbound lanes. Plans change. It's now a city road. There's other roadway going on. But we are seeing now the right-of-way, I'm sorry, the traffic, the average daily traffic on Versailles that they set as the point at which Red Mile would need to be widened when they designed and planted and acquired this right-of-way along Red Mile, the very wide right-of-way, back in 1975. five. So your question today, this is a new world. We don't just keep everything we always had, but I don't think we give up right away or even grant easements lightly. We do it with planning and with the general community welfare in mind. So I would urge you, the last thing I want to say is you'll find it boxed in my letter to you. There's no pedestrian path from Versailles to the store and that is really the front. Very few people will come from Red Mile where there is no sidewalk to come in from the side to that store along the safe pedestrian path there. So that's another element of design that you require of your development plans that is at this point still absent. So it's fraught with conflict and difficulty for a pedestrian, but let's look at what I have boxed in my letter. It's a gas station. We know it's a gas station. These are people who are in the business of building a good gas station. And what we need to do is make it one that's right for B1 in its design. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Singer? Ms. Singer, you may go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I do want to reiterate that I am not asking that this not be allowed. We know that this is a permitted use in the B-1, but your motion asked for another configuration to make this development less overpowering and less obtrusive. And the applicant has not changed the development to make it less overpowering or obtrusive. And they have done so because they are using red mile, the edge of that 193 foot long canopy. They are using the edge of that canopy as their 20-foot setback along Red Mile. This is a privilege for them to allow, that you must grant. This is a privilege that you must grant. And it is dependent upon using that red mile front lot line it must not be injurious to the existing or the desirable future development of adjacent properties all i am saying is that front yard lot line should not be granted by you the commission that it is reasonable to conclude that for sales road should be the front lot line and that this should be sent back for a redevelopment to use for sales road as the front lot line. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Enger. Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall, you may go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to address some of the applicant's statements about safety because I wanted to point out that most all their comments about safety mentioned customers. Little of their comments about safety other than somehow saying right in right out is actually more safe for pedestrians is they did not address pedestrian safety at all. I think Ms. Clark was accurate in pointing out that most people are walking on Versailles. You would, if you're coming up Versailles towards Red Mile, you have to cross both of those driveways before you can get to their supposedly front sidewalk entrance, unless you're going to play Frogger across the parking lot. this is approving this would be blatantly putting cars over people and commuters over the actual neighborhood in the vicinity people from divine are going to have to like walk all the way around to get access to it it's not conducive to the urban context in which it sits you can do a gas station in ways that don't, that aren't focused as primarily around the cars, or at least in such a way that isn't a detriment to every other non-vehicular user. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Okay, now we'll move over to staff comments. All right, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Members of the committee staff, in terms of our rebuttal, is really just, again, we like to clarify things, make sure the Planning Commission has good information and understands the situation. so I'm going to start out by clarifying something that's been said about a 20-foot building line in the B1. As you all know it's a 10 to 20 foot it's a build to setback. This decision on meeting that setback along that front yard is consistent with other decisions that have been made on other projects in our community and a gas station specifically out on Clay's Mill, Delzanne, you saw that development plan. Very same thing was done. So again, this has been consistent with prior decisions on the setback. Now, as to, I enjoyed the comment by the gentleman of a sidewalk to nowhere. That is a consistent argument staff hears from developers. We don't want to build that sidewalk. It's not going to go anywhere. Well, we like to get them where we can because those gaps are likely going to be filled by taxpayers' money, by a public project. That's exactly what's happening on Versailles Road. The state of Kentucky is doing a project. They are going to be making improvements. They are going to be emphasizing pedestrian facilities in that project. The work that this applicant is doing will complement those pedestrian facilities. And as an example of a safety concern, well, the right in, right out does just that from a vehicular viewpoint. It is addressing the safety issues with the sales road. Now, it so happens, as you all are aware, and on the report, it's there. we have a full-time bike and ped planner and he reviews these and he tweaks these and he works with the applicant to get good pedestrian access across parking lots and into stores. We are very much aware and have in fact modified right in right out designs on more than one occasion to address pedestrian concerns. Very much aware of that in our review. Traffic engineering or bike and ped, Kentucky District Department of Transportation, have all reviewed this and determined that, again, it meets the requirements. It's not impacting the traveling public or pedestrians in any way that requires more than what's being done. The Red Mile Road improvements, those aren't required. They don't have to do any. They have the right to use the existing infrastructure. So they are definitely improving Red Mile Road and performing a public good. We have, your staff, through redevelopment on Red Mile Road, have managed to get pedestrian facilities. That road was a state road for a long time. It's an arterial. You don't generally get pedestrian facilities on arterials. So we've been playing catch up on Red Mile. So this is actually a very welcome development. And this sidewalk to nowhere will eventually connect to those sidewalks on further down Red Mile Road. The right-of-way issue, and John explained this very well, staff had a lot of discussions with various people. The right-of-way was purchased by the Urban County Council on behalf of the state. It is state right-of-way. They've not chosen to utilize it. It doesn't legally exist as right-of-way yet. The state may decide they need it when they come through to do the project. It may be. I would add that a right turn lane in that location, just along that dedication of right-of-way, would not meet engineering standards for the required length of a right turn lane. Okay, it wouldn't. They're going to have to go much further back west on Versailles Road to construct an appropriate and safe turn lane in that location. And by the way, Lex Tran doesn't like to be in turn lanes because then if they're going through, they've got to pull back out into traffic. So, you know, it's good to know, again, that this applicant has been working with Lex Tran. So we just want to clarify some things and help you. And again, I'm glad to hear that there's a better understanding of a by-right development and uses in a buy-write development in B1. And by the way, there's 47 principal uses in the B1, of which this is just one, and there's quite a variety. And again, not the least of which could be a fast food restaurant with double drive-thrus on this location. I mean, that's something to keep in mind with the buy-write B1 zoning. And again, staff stands by its original report to you and its recommendation of approval of this plan. Thank you, Tom. Mr. Nickel? Yes, my question is to Mr. Martin. Are we at that point where I can ask a question to Mr. Martin? I'm sorry I might have jumped the gun No no you were fine I seen you there itching so go ahead Mr. Martin when we're looking at your notes here on note 6 you said bike and pedestrian planners approval of bike trails and pedestrian facilities so during that process as they receive that approval are they going to address access to the convenience store itself or just the overall site? Both, both. Okay. Scott, Scott, and I love this about Scott. He is so consistent about wanting to make sure that people have good access into a store, into a business or into an apartment building for that matter. Now, again, there's challenges. And we have to remember that there's a lot of things that this site has to accommodate. And I think staff agrees with the applicant and their effort to make it at the site as safe as possible. It may be nothing more than we mark a crosswalk to get people into the store where they ought to walk. Of course, people being who they are, they're going to probably just wander all through the parking lot the way they like. But still, that is part of the effort that we make in working with an applicant. Again, these are conditional approvals. So these plans do get tweaked. Thank you. And talking again about pedestrian facilities, Mrs. Clark did provide some information to us, which is great. I mean, this page 25 of hers shows the Versailles corridor study, and it shows that they requested an eight-foot shared use path on the south side of the road. And I think that's exactly what we see on this development plan. It's a share use path. And as it's showed right here, it's showing bicycles and pedestrians on that eight foot. So there are some questions I had about where is the bike path? Is it true that this eight foot pedestrian path is, or excuse me, eight foot share use path is for both bike and pedestrian? I believe so. I'd have to go back and review the full study. But again, the emphasis on that study is going to be to upgrade for sales road to accommodate all users. Yes. And it does say right here on the for sales road corridor study, eight foot shared use path on south side of road. And it's the image shows bicyclers and pedestrians. And a lot of that traffic does come pedestrian traffic does come down the south side. there's a lot of that. I travel Versailles road quite a bit. And there's a lot of women that are at the chrysalis house, go down, go right down that path. And then they cross the street to go to the Thornton's convenience store, which I would think is terribly dangerous. So to me, it looks like an improvement. And from a development standpoint, I mean, it's something I'm, I'm, I agree with the staff and agree. I'm not making it. I just agree with staff's recommendation for approval. I would want to formally say that I want to close that part of the session out and make it for the commission members to ask questions. Sorry. No, Bruce, you're fine. You're fine. That's not a problem. It's been a little long meeting. That's no problem. Does any other commission members have any questions for staff? or actually, excuse me, amongst each other at this time. Mr. Poe. I would preface this by agreeing with Paula Singer's remark that we had specifically asked for alternative development scenarios that would be more sensitive to the context of the street. and we're not seeing that. I don't think placing a five-foot square slab for a piece of art is, maybe it's a baby step in that direction. But for me, I guess I'd like to, Tom, if you could address a question, how do you see the project in terms of how it responds to the comprehensive plan? I believe that it is responsive in the sense that we're getting better pedestrian facilities. I believe that they are meeting the B1 setback intent, consistent, as I said, with other decisions. But again, staff has to step back and look at this as a by-right development. And this zoning existed before the comprehensive plan and before the small area plan. So it's a balancing act and a negotiation. And we try to work with developers, as in this case, to try to bring them in to more compliance as best we can. but it can be difficult because of the legal framework that we all live under and operate under thank you mr poe any other discussions from commission members i've got one larry okay mr penn uh you're up and then after mr penn miss plumley okay you know most of the time when i look at a development plan i like to describe it as 11 pounds of flyer and a seven pound sack this is just the opposite this this development plan has plenty of land to do a very progressive uh site specific development plan and we asked for that and I really don't think we've seen it. Now, does that override their right to do what they need to do? I don't think it does. But what I do think it does, it shows that their corporate pattern works for them in most places, and they're not willing to change their corporate pattern. And so we certainly cannot force them to change it at this particular location because of zoning. and I really wish this development was oriented toward Red Mile and not toward Versailles Road. But their claim is that they've done what they can do with it. They've certainly done a lot of things that we've asked them to do, and I cannot find reasons to overturn this thing. It's just I think it's a corporate challenge and a corporate cookie cutter that fits on this lot. And the lot is big enough to have been creative, and they chose not to be creative. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. When I first heard the applicant say today this compared to their site out on Athens Booneboro at I-75, it grabbed me that this is not I-75. This is a neighborhood. And it's also not a loan change, as has been mentioned many times. so consequently we cannot vote something that's legally defensible in denying this development we we had hoped for something that was more humane something that was more in accord with a livable neighborhood something that would be ascetic as a gateway to lexington and we didn't get it today. You know, the applicant quoted that they were a top-flight corporate citizen, and I think if someone in that category could have come up with something a little bit more digestible to the neighborhood at this point. And going back to the comp plan, the mission statement is flexible, yet focused planning guidance to ensure equitable development of our community resources. And there's not anything equal about this development. It's not equal to what the neighborhood expects, to what the small area plan expects. And again, I object to approval, even though it's not legally defensible. I think I'll sleep better tonight. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Blumman. Ms. Meyer? I have a question, and it's regarding other folks who were in the audience who have not spoken. I mean, how large an audience do we have here today? What's your question? We have 27 people in our attendee list, but that includes some staff members and other divisions. It would be difficult to tell exactly how many folks are here for this one application. Well, I guess where I'm getting at is that if we were meeting in person, I would think that we would have a full house of people. You know, people have spent, our citizens have spent a lot of time working on small area development plans, area plans, with the expectation that when something like this comes up, that they can refer back to it. And, you know, and I, the applicant has made concessions to that, you know, he, applicants have, have made mention of it and have, have put things into their plan that speak to some of the provisions that are in the small area plan. But, you know, I just don't see that this is an enhancement to the neighborhood, even with those additions. And I understand it's a buy right, but does buy right make it right? Does, you know, because they can, is it the right thing to do? And so I'll just leave it at that for now. Okay, thank you for your comments. Mr. Pohl? I would like to ask my fellow commission members to give some thought to a question that I have. the issue of the front lot line and the applicant choosing to put it on Red Mile with road when you read the language about that it indicates that that's okay provided that the choice will not be injurious to the existing or to the desirable future development of adjacent properties. And Mr. Martin rightly pointed out that there are ample precedents of very similar kinds of developments being approved. But are we not being asked to consider whether we should be breaking those precedents in certain cases? And is this one of those cases? Good question. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Poe. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Mr. Wilson? Based on what Mr. Poe just indicated, I think the idea of the reason the laws are set are so that there is some equitable elements connected with it. And sometimes I don't like the laws, and the best thing to do there is go change them. But to make a change of interpretation predicated on the law, that's what the courts do but i'm you know my confliction is on this is very simple if i it was i think mr someone said it this is not at the top of my wish list this service station but it is illegal it's well within the law they've done everything that has been asked staff has given approval and what have you so even though my heart tells me one thing And the logic of it tells me we should, in effect, go ahead and approve this particular plan. But that's just my one person's opinion. Thank you. So at this time, the commission is and the floor is open for a vote on this application at this time from one of the commission members. Mr. Nichols. I would recommend approval with this in I guess compliance with the approval from the staff and there are 20 recommendations for PLN MJDP 20-00076 Ball Homes Property and Lillian Hunt Speedway 101-282 we have a motion on the floor we have a second to that motion second seconded by mr wilson oh there's only 15 conditions on the report oh we want to revise that mr nickel to 15 the 15 the 15 conditions yes sir thank you mr wilson yeah all right thank you um so we have a motion in a second all in favor please raise your hand so we've got uh forster penn wilson marchdale nickel all opposed please raise your hand so we got plumley pole davis bell my mr ty Okay. We should get Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones, if you're on the line, we have a tie. Ms. Jones, you'll just need to unmute yourself. We can ask you to unmute right now. Oh, you are. I'm muted. Go right ahead. So, you have a tie, but it's not a zone change. the development plan and so that means that the motion failed okay thank you so motions failed for the approval so we we'll need to do it again if we do it oh it wouldn't do it change our vote yeah mr chairman you're right from a parliamentary perspective it wouldn't make make any difference because we could be doing this all day and all night. Yeah. Okay. Well, this application, at this moment, time has failed. What's next? What happens now? Sir, I believe that Ms. Jones can answer this question. Another motion could be made in a different fashion. Ms. Jones? Yes, you could make a different motion. but you know that you need to think how you might want to do that in terms of making it different from the motion that was just made in terms of just flipping it in other words you know you can condition put conditions on development plans and those types of things anyway I want to think about that you know it's failed as a it's failed by your vote but also because a tie vote by a matter of procedure is a failure unless it's the zone change which then requires it to be reconsidered in 30 days but this is not a zone change okay all right mr nickel you had your hand raised i'm just saying if we're we're gonna be stuck all day what are some things that you know as we're talking as commission members um something some things other than use of the by right use of the property that um could be added as a conditional requirement that would get someone to change their vote yes or what do we do Am I making a suggestion? Yes, sir. I don't know whether to make this form of a motion or not, but I'd like for the commission to discuss it a little bit. What would happen if we approve this motion based on the fact that it be orientated to the Red Mile Road instead of Brissales Road? I would be concerned that I'm not an expert in convenience gas station stores, and the people that are putting one in are. And I would imagine that this is the safest and best way to access the property. The one thing that I would like to see would be a more delineated pedestrian and bike access from Versailles Road to the convenience store itself. Because one of the citizens made a great point. You've got to go all the way around the corner. If you're coming down Versailles Road, you've got to go all the way around the corner to Red Mile Road. And then you've got to cross over again to hit this five-foot sidewalk that gets you safely into the store. I wish that they could, I would propose that they would make a five foot or maybe a six foot pedestrian access to the building. But I don't know how you do that. I'm not a gas station designer. But pedestrian access, I think, would be important if it was better delineated rather than, as Mr. Martin said. Well, I guess that Mr. Martin said that they've worked through this with number six. That's how they got to an approval. So I don't know. Thanks for your comments, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Pohl? Let me ask you something, Bruce. if there were a condition that asked for the pedestrian access to be developed on the opposite side of the property from Red Mile Road so the pedestrian coming down the sales road doesn't have to go around the entire property to get to the convenience store, would that satisfy your feeling? Absolutely. Because that is where I see a lot of the traffic. And once again, a lot of people do use, convenience stores, as we know, are not necessarily, their revenue is not necessarily generated from gas. It's generated from the convenience of the store itself. And that is an amenity to, it may not be the Whole Foods, but it is an amenity to the neighborhood by providing a convenience store. And we see a lot of people traveling from, there's a large group from the Chrysalis House make their daily kind of walk down south on Versailles Road. I like the idea of an eight-foot pedestrian path, a shared use path that they're going to be putting in, and hopefully everyone puts in all the way up and down Versailles Road. We need that ASAP. But if you could somehow make it safer for pedestrians to get into the convenience store itself from Versailles Road, that's kind of what I was thinking, but I'm a yes anyway, so I'm just trying to convince other people to yeah okay miss plumley none of that really changes the context of the design though you know you still got uh what is it four thousand five thousand foot building and eight double pumps out front and it's it's still a neighborhood blight and still out of context so i i don't know i think it's up to the developer to for them to decide how they can clean it up to make it more acceptable to the neighborhood other than as as bruce said we're not he's not a gas paint a gas station designer and i don't think the rest of us are either but so i think it's up to the applicant to maybe we could request them to come back one more time and say, hey, you know, can you give us something a little bit more that folks are going to like? Davis. Mr. Chairman, I agree with Ms. Plumlee. I think if I were submitting an application, the last thing I would want is for the Planning Commission to parse possibilities in real time without me being able to really weigh in on it with due diligence that I'm sure they would want. So I would agree with Ms. Plumlee. I'd be happy to consider another plan on another date that has taken into consideration the very valid concerns shared today by commission members and citizens. Okay, Mr. Davis, if you want to make that motion, before you do that, though, Mr. Bell has a hand raised. And then also staff, Mr. Bailey, would like to say something after. I would just refer to Ms. Jones about any future changes. So, Mr. Chairman, I saw Mr. Woodall take his mute button off. I didn't know if he might want to. Is he allowed to comment on behalf of no? Not at this point, James. All right. Okay. That's about it. One question I got right now. So I'm on the fence. I feel this has been extraordinary. If you think about it, the developers from the beginning, you know, they came back and worked with us with regard to the housing and such. And the two councilmen to speak and Ms. Singer to speak and staff to speak, I think it's been extraordinary exercise. And councilmen, you know, you should be proud of staff. I'm proud of staff and everything else. and developers, I appreciate y'all's challenge. But, you know, like you said, Mr. Woodall, we all love this city. You know, we're trying to make the city better. And the care that we take in each of these decisions is not taken lightly. But I appreciate what Mr. Pohl has said and what Mr. Penn has said. And this is essentially an approved condition of use. and so I guess what I would say if um Mr. Penn if you would like to make a motion um back to kind of what you were you were thinking about before um I would like to you know I'd like to hear if there's something we can do with regard to what Mr. Nichols said if there's something we can do um to just continue to bring us all together um I don't think we're that far off and I would just like to say that. Thank you. Can I respond to that, Larry? Yes, Mr. Penn. If you want to, I want to also get Ms. Jones on there, on the line with us. Let's do that first. Before we do anything, because she's not here at the moment. I agree with you. Yeah, yeah. I just want to make sure it's done legally, the right way. I'm still here. I'm just not visible. Okay, we're good. So we're needing some definitely clarification, Ms. Jones, on the necessary steps and the right steps. Well, I mean, and Mr. Bailey or Mr. Martin may have to help me out on in terms of if they were like, if the developer's going to potentially come back with some alternate or amended type of plan. well, I guess it would be amended really because it hasn't been approved, but I'm not, I'm not for sure. I'm not sure procedurally exactly what the timeframes are on that. Maybe they can help me out with that. But I mean, basically your options at this point are to either try to formulate some kind of emotion that puts some types of different conditions on some of the factors that that are really problematic for those that didn't feel like the plan should be approved and see if that makes a difference. Or you also have to balance that in the context of, you know, what Mr. Nickel and Ms. Plumlee said of, do you want to, you know, do you want to try to do that on your own? Or do you want, you know, to give them time to do that and bring it back? and Mr. Bailey and Mr. Martin, I see you're both there. So they may be able to speak to timing-wise how that works in terms of if they come back to you. Okay. Mr. Martin, let me hear your comments as well. Well, I was talking to some fellow staff members, including my director, so I didn't hear everything that Tracy said. So I'm reluctant to comment exactly until I understand. Okay. Mr. Martin, along the same lines of what you and I had just discussed, I think you would make that recommendation now. Well, again, if they're allowed to, and I think Tracy would have to speak to this, my recommendation to be perhaps you could continue this once again and have them come back with a revised design. Again, if they agree to that. but I don't know since you've taken a vote how that works. I would have to rely on Ms. Jones. Mr. Nickel. Okay. If we're stuck at four to four, I would be for a continuance, but there's got to be a time limit on it. We can't sit here for another three and a half hours. Well, Mr. Nickel, that was going to be my next thing too, is we're going to come back and make a vote again. Could I say something quickly along the lines of what Mr. Pohl suggested? Briefly. What if the motion was to insert a more pedestrian friendly entrance to the property or path, exactly like Graham said, obviously it would have to be ADA compliant and we'll have to check that out on our end. If we can do it, we can, if we can't, there we are. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, and Mr. Penn. I think we're at a stage right now where the ball's in their court. I'm not comfortable with us trying to pick something that can get another vote that will swing it in their favor. I think they've heard all of our concerns, and I don't want to belabor this. I certainly don't want to go through another three-hour hearing, but short of something that's really a revised development plan, it's going to be hard for for us to do something here today that's going to swing this vote and i don't see any sense to spend a lot more time on it trying to play let's make a deal i think they've heard our concerns we've voted we've decided where we are and i think the ball's in their court and if i may add i agree yes mr penn i know i was going to mention and ask you a question about that we tend to not want to negotiate during this process. And Mr. Billy. We've all voted, Mr. Chairman, on how we feel about it. And I don't think, you know, I don't think, you know, I was on the side of voting for it, so I certainly can't speak what would change it. But if somebody has something other than a sidewalk, I think they need to come back with something this a whole lot better than what they came with but i voted for it because i didn't think we can legally do this yeah mr bailey uh mr chair if this uh application is disapproved uh based off of the pedestrian infrastructure and the safety concerns associated with that this athlete applicant would be able to refile with that knowledge in one month uh and come for in the uh file next month and address those concerns specifically associated with the pedestrian infrastructure, the pedestrian safety that has been raised by the Planning Commission today. Okay. But at this moment in time, it's disapproved. Yes, sir. The votes came with a 5-5 tie, it's disapproved. Ms. Jones, is that correct? I think yes, because it's a little unusual because it fails by a tie. But those people that were voting no have expressed some of the reasons that they were voting no. And so I believe that they can come back. I think what did you say is a month or time wise procedurally? They are able to file the next filing deadline. Correct, Mr. Martin? Oops. I was checking yes they can refile and they can modify the plan and they can address all the concerns not just pedestrian if they need to address orientation certainly they can do that on the new plan okay I think that's where we are right now it's disapproved and the applicant need to refile that's i mean that's we we'll be here all night yeah that's right we appreciate it that's one of the choices but we appreciate your time today thank you thank you uh mr pole just a real quick observation i know that there's a wide range of uh how commission members respond to the plan that they're looking at i would and one thing that has not been brought up and i think is worth bringing up is landscaping. It looks to me like the landscaping is minimal, just meant to meet requirements. And I would encourage the applicant to have a look at that as a way of mitigating some of the problems. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Mr. Woodall, thank you. Mr. Nickel? If we're making comments as well, instead of putting in just a try to make that art feature They've been talking about this as a corridor, a feature of Lexington. Get creative and try to do something with the art and make that corner stand out and continue to make it safe and accessible by pedestrians from Versailles Road and from Red Mile Road. And I do applaud the eight foot shared pedestrian path or shared use path. That's the way we need to be going everywhere. Okay. All right. Thank you. So now we're going to move on now on the agenda here. Staff, if there's any staff items and commission items that we need to discuss. Yes, sir. Mr. Jim Duncan should be available to address the Planning Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Hal. Mr. Chair, at this time, the only thing I want to remind you all is that we'll be back in committee meetings next Thursday. next Thursday subdivision in the morning and we do have zoning committee review this time so zoning at the afternoon at 1 30 Thursday March the 4th and thank you all for your time and deliberation and your attention to this very important development today thank you thank you Mr. Duncan any commission member has anything else to yeah I would just like to sorry if I may just reiterate I thought that was a great exercise of, you know, the citizens and the council and and the developers and staff. You know, truly that that's that's what we're all about. And I just you know, we don't like stalemates and stuff like that. But I just I'm proud of everybody in this exercise. So I just want to say that. Mr. Nichols for the fifth time. I can't stop talking. I agree with Mr. Bell. but it is important for us to understand by right law by right by right is law I'm with you but I also respect what Mr. Pol said too I respect again I respect what everybody said it was really good exercise it was a fair vote but I'm going to put you guys on a time limit but it was a fair vote So that's fine. Listen, our time, honestly, you know, you think about the investment that all these people are putting into this. And our time is little compared to what they're doing. So I never paid for it. I never feel that way. And it's a privilege to be able to have a chance to make a decision. Yeah. That's why I try to give the citizens a little more time because they're taking time out of their day to speak and it could be working. So most of them had, what, four and a half minutes or so. that's part of it. So we're trying to maintain that and help out. But if nothing else, hope everyone have a good weekend. Frank, we'll see you back tomorrow. Hey Larry, always remember anything worth doing is not easy. That's true. Thank you for that old adage. Okay. All right. Well, if hearing none, this commission is closed for today. Thank you very much, everyone.