Keep on rockin' me, rockin' me, rockin' baby, baby, baby Keep on rockin' me, baby Keep on rockin' me, baby Keep on rockin' me, baby Thank you. She calls out to the man on the street Sir, can you help me? It's cold and I know where to sleep Is there somewhere you can tell me He walks on, doesn't look back He pretends he can't hear her Starts to whistle as he crosses the street Seems embarrassed to be there Oh, think twice Cause it's another day for you and me in paradise Only twice Cause it's another day for you You and me in paradise Thank you. I'm going to call this meeting to order. It's May 13, 2021. First off, I'd like to read the governor's statement. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic state of emergency, Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill as signed by the governor on March 30, 2020, and Attorney General of Opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. Next on the agenda item is the approval of minutes. These are the April 8, 2021 minutes. Do we have any changes or a motion? Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Move approval of April 8, 2021 minutes. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. I'll wait on Mr. Davis that he stepped out. Let me wait on the bank that he can move. He might have went too fast. Okay. Wave at us, Zach. Hey, Zach, we just had a motion for the approval of the April 8th minutes. Are you in? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. I was just printing out our agenda. Oh, you're fine. We were waiting for you. Didn't want to move forward until we got back. Thank you. So next up, I'd like to go to get an approval. We're going to skip here and go to performance bonds and letter of credits. I need a motion for approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit. Thank you, Mr. Penn. We have a second to that motion. Seconded by Mr. Bell. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Any postponements and or withdrawals? And I'd like to have, we do have some reasons behind either postponements or withdrawals. Staff, do we have any that you're aware of? We do, Chairman Forrester, we do have two individuals that have raised their hands, Donna Brown and Sean Pickman. I believe they might be with the same application. Good afternoon. Hi, yes. Good afternoon. This is Donna Brown. Sean Hickman is with Interplan LLC as well. We would once again, unfortunately, like to respectfully request a postponement for the PLN MJDP 21-0006. Wiggins and Company, Chick-fil-A, it is a development plan amendment. We unfortunately are going to have to limit the limits of our project to just the Chick-fil-A property. We have run into some more issues with trying to obtain third-party approvals for some of the other work that we had proposed. So we are going to go back almost very similar to what we had originally gotten approved with the development plan amendment last year. And so we're going to go back very similarly to that, except we're going to add an additional lane in the canopy on the pickup window side. So we're working on getting those plans updated, and we would like to respectfully request to be included on the next subdivision committee meeting and the next planning commission meeting. And we're more than willing to answer any questions or concerns anyone has. thank you Donna is that meeting date the next subdivision item public meeting date is June 10th and that allows them to be present at the subdivision committee on June 3rd okay so we have a one month postponement for the June 10th meeting that's the request that we have a motion Ms. Plumlee thank you Mr. Chair move postponement until June 10th for PLNMJDP215, Wigginson Company. Thank you. We have a second. Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, family. We'll look forward to seeing you next month. And then is there anyone else present who would like to postpone today? You can do so by raising your hand via the Zoom. Mr. Austin Wee. Okay. Good afternoon. Yes. Hello. My name is Austin Swain. I'm representing Bix Engineering. This is for the Coventry Development Belmont Farm Unit 7. We would like to respectfully request postponement to the next meeting. That's PLNMJSUMB 21-1. Is that correct? Page 3? Yes, that is correct. Okay. Just want to make sure I have it. And you're postponing this for one month? Yes, please. okay any further discussion to that recommendation right now not seeing any the floor is open for a motion for a one-month postponement mr wilson yes mr chairman i move that we postpone pln mj sub 21-1 belmont farm unit 7 coventry as amended uh for one month or until i think june the 10th That's correct. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Oh, thank you. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kaley. Good afternoon. Rory Caleb, EA Partners on page four, item C, MJDP 20-9. This is Kingston Hall, unit one and two. I'd like to follow staff's recommendation and request a one-month postponement. We got a recommendation for a one-month postponement to the June 10th meeting. Any discussion to that postponement? I see any. Floor is open for your motion. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. Move postponement until June 10th for PLNMJDP-219 Kingston Hall. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Wilson or Mr. Paul? Was that you, Mr. Wilson? Yeah, well, yeah, you're one of us. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. I don't see any other hands raised. Move on to consent agenda staff. Do we have another? I don't think that's fine. You can move it. We do have a consent agenda. We were just checking to see if anyone else would raise their hand today. We do have a consent agenda. It should be on our Google Drive. available for the Planning Commission members. There are four items that appear on the agenda today. These are the items that have been recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. The petitioner agrees with the condition to agree to abide by them. There's no discussion items, and then there's no waiver of the land subdivision regulation. We'll just ask now, when I run through and read these four items, if there's anyone present who wishes to have any of them removed from the consent agenda for further discussion by the planning commission. So we'll start with item one is a final record class recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. So on page two of our agenda, item B, PLN FRP 21-8 for the HG Early Schneider Family Farm LLC. This parcel is located at 8380 Old Richmond Road, Council District 12. The next items on our consent agenda are all development plans, again, recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. The first one appears on page 5, item D, is PLN MJDP 21-15 for Zandale Shopping Center and Greenleaf Motor Lodge properties, the amended development plan for property located at 2270 Nicholasville Road, Council District 4. The next item appears on page 5, item F, as in Frank, of our agenda. PLN, MJDP 21-18, Ramsey Sullivan property, lot 4, also known as the Gardens of Plumny Ridge, an amended final development plan. It's in District 12 as well. And then last, on page 6, item G, PLN MJDP 21-19 for Lexington Lofts LLC property, also associated with the Citadel Warehouse Services. This is an amended final development plan for property at 251 Price Road in Council District 2. If there's anyone present on the teleconference today in the audience who wishes to have any of these items pulled from the consent agenda and for the commission to hear them, we'd ask you to raise your hand in the Zoom teleconference. And then if there's anyone from the commission who wishes to have any of these further presented by the staff, we'd have to do so as well. I'm not seeing any hands in our teleconference today of wishes to remove these from the consent agenda so the Planning Commission can take all four items with one motion. The floor is open for a motion for the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir, Ms. Penn? I move approval to the May 13th consent agenda as presented by staff. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Any further discussion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, staff. Okay. So that should take us to page two of the agenda. Final subdivision plans, item 1A, PLN, FRP, dash 20, dash 57. stand. All right. So I'm unmuted. I'm off to a good start. There we go. We got a waiver. Before you start, Mr. Martin, make sure commission members know that we do have a waiver for this. Yes, sir. here we go this is a final record plat 20-57 for the Dotson Farm subdivision unit two and as your chairman has pointed out the reason it is before you today is for that waiver request now this is a plat for the second unit of the Dotson Farm subdivision It is located out on Haley Downs Road, which is off of Haley Road, in that area between where Haley Road crosses the interstate, I-64, and then runs to Briar Hill. So that's in the section. That is where Haley Downs is located. And Unit 1 is down in this direction towards Haley Road. And Haley Downs Road comes up through here and then cul-de-sacs in this location. You may recall when you originally saw this, this is the large floodplain that transverses the property. They are proposing this lot, this lot, and then this large 250-acre lot, which actually crosses over the rail line that is in this location. This is all one lot and is tied together and has to remain as one, as a matter of fact. That's that big note on the plan. To give you a further reference point, over here in this direction is the landfill, I believe, for our community. Now, the interesting thing about this plat and why it's come back before you today is that Haley Downs Road or Drive was constructed about 10 years ago, approximately. and the front section is public up to this point. So from its intersection at Haley Road all the way up to this point, it is a public street and it serves, I believe, 11 lots in this location. Subsequently, this portion was never dedicated. Only the unit one was dedicated. And that was because they had not sold any of these lots. So they didn't file any plats to dedicate that section of Haley Downs Road. They subsequently came in. You reapproved their preliminary subdivision plan. It made some slight changes that provided for this lotting pattern. We now have before you the final record plat for your approval. Again, that will create these lots. And they are requesting a waiver on this portion of Haley Downs Drive. And this is a little bit of an interesting waiver in that it is a waiver to the actual physical construction of the road and specifically the thickness of the base and the asphalt of the road. It has been constructed. But unfortunately, due to some communication issues between the owner, who's a retired engineer, staff understands, and with the contractor that was hired to do work, the road was not inspected. and so there's some issues and it's attached there's a memo uh should say an email attached to your waiver report which again should be in your google drive which uh points out some of the issues that our division of engineering when they were able uh informed of this and were able to inspect they had some core drillings done and that's how they discovered that there are sections of the road that the base is not thick enough. So rather than tear up the complete road and rebuild it, they are before you today to request a waiver, again, on the thickness of the constructed road. Now, there are some issues with the shoulder and the ditches on the side of the road, the applicant is going to bring those into compliance. And of course, they obviously address the drainage that will be coming off that road and have to be conveyed. But they are going to bring that into compliance. So it's important to note that today they're just asking for a waiver on that thickness of the street. And I want to note because it's not it's not expressed in their request or in the report that they want to include the final one inch course of asphalt and that was just made clear to staff this morning so what basically it's got the dense base grade the gravel that's required it's got asphalt it's got three inches of asphalt fault on it. They are a little over that. They are asking for a waiver to basically keep it as is. Now, one aspect of this waiver is that you will need to make a finding that this is an access easement. This road will not be dedicated to the public. And if it was, if they did want to dedicate the public, they would have to tear it up and they would have to completely rebuild it before we would accept it. So they want, they are asking for a finding that it be classified again or approved as an easement. As you all know, easements are not uncommon in our rural area. However, your subdivision regulations do require that they be built to public standards. You haven't seen a lot of new roads out in the rural area for these subdivisions. A lot of times This body is dealing with existing conditions and existing roads on these farms when they request you to approve access easements. Staff has reviewed this. We have talked considerably with the Division of Engineering. The Division of Fire has been out there to inspect the situation, and it's wide enough. They've got a big turnaround with the cul-de-sac. There's no concern with the provision of public safety. So in evaluating this, staff does concur that it would be a hardship to completely tear up this section of the road. And it's about 1,100 feet, about 1,100 linear feet in this direction that they would have to remove and reconstruct, including the cul-de-sac. This lot number four has a considerable amount of frontage on Haley Downs that is public, and we are recommending they be restricted in their access to that public portion as one aspect of our approval of this waiver. In fact, your staff is recommending the approval of the waiver, and we are recommending that you make a finding on this as an access easement. If you have any questions for your staff, I'll be happy to answer them. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Penn. Tom, refresh my memory of why that other 200 acres can't be subdivided to 48 tracks. Mr. Van, I love interesting situations, and this is one. And that's that railroad right-of-way would technically constitute a property boundary because it's right-of-way. But when this was originally approved many years ago, because of access issues and frontage issues, these have been tied together as one lot and must be sold and transferred as one, unless there's some way to provide the appropriate frontage and access for this rear portion. Okay. So either way, it wouldn't use this access easement? No, sir. Other than that, this access easement will serve this portion. And there's a access gravel, I believe, access drive across the railroad into this rear portion. Yeah. We call that a hurry up exit. Yes. Yes. Any other questions for Tom at this moment? Not seeing any. Okay. We'll move over to the applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Murphy. Do you have others on your team, or is it just you today? John Hill from Eagle Engineering is with us. Bill McAlpin from Eagle is on the road. So I'm here representing the Dotson Family Partnership, and we, on behalf of Billy Cornett, who's the family manager of the Dotson Family Partnership, we apologize for the misunderstanding that we had on this property. Mr. Dotson, as Mr. Martin mentioned, is a retired civil engineer, worked at the highway department. And when this road was being reconstructed, he hired Ellie Gregg, consulting engineers, to be the inspectors on this. The contractor, who is from out of county, did not call up Ellie Gregg to inspect this while they were doing it. So unfortunately, the construction of this was not inspected as it should have been. And we are very apologetic about that. I've talked to Bill McAlpin, and he's indicated to me that we did core drillings after the fact to try to verify this. And in some places, our pavement is thicker than required. In some places, it's not quite as thick as required. Bill told me if we could average, we'd be in compliance with public standards. But we understand we cannot average this. And there are parts of this that are slightly below standard on this. We have this property serves or it has three lots have frontage on the access easement. Our ordinance says that in the AR zone, if an access easement serves more than two lots, the roadway has to meet public standards unless the public standards are waived. We have three lots with frontage, but we have been in communication with the buyer of the lot on the right side and the buyer on the lots on the right side wants their access to be on the public portion of Haley Downs Drive. That lot has about 615 feet of frontage on Haley Downs Drive, so that can easily be accomplished. So our access easement will actually be handling only traffic from two lots. As Mr. Martin mentioned, this is a cul-de-sac. There's no cross traffic. There'll be very little truck traffic or car traffic on this. And we will add a note to the plat saying that the access easement will be maintained by the private lots that border it. It will not be maintained by the urban county government. we do agree with the staff recommendation for your approval on this one and we we appreciate the time and effort everybody has put into this so with that I'll just say that we do support we were in agreement with the staff recommendation and as Mr. Martin mentioned we will do the upgrade to the shoulder and the ditches as he mentioned on this one Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Does any commission member have any questions for the applicant? I see any. Do we have any citizens that would like to make a comment either for or against this particular agenda item? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. Do you have a caller that isn't identified? Okay. Would you mind if we'd like them? Yeah, it's the 606-233-0264. Can you identify yourself, please? There's a caller. 606-233-0264. Can you identify yourself, please? Okay, we'll move on. So we'll close this part of the meeting and bring it back to the commission for a motion. Mr. Pohl. Move to approve PLN FRP 2057 waiver request to designate a portion of Haley Downs Drive as an access easement for the reasons indicated by staff. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. No discussion. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all very much. You approved the plan again, but really we need a waiver. He approved the waiver. Yeah, he approved the waiver. Yeah, the waiver was in the motion. And the finding for the access even was in the motion too, as I heard it. Yes. Yep, that's correct. Thank you, Mr. Merck. Thank you. Okay. Should be on page four of the agenda. PLNMJDP-21-7. We have revised staff recommendation of approval with 17 conditions. Staff. And that revised recommendation should be in the Google Drive under item 3B. Good afternoon. This is Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Barton Way, Office Park, Phase 2, Lot 9. lot nine. This is Sir Barton Way. We have Winchester Road over in this direction. This is I-75 along here heading to the I guess the east I'm sorry. We had just done the bank not too long ago over in this area. This was where a street was to be stubbed to be able to connect underneath the interstate over to the other side of the interstate for polo club. So just trying to give you an idea of where we're at. So we're located right here in between. This is lot number nine. They're wanting to put in an office building with parking, doctor's office. So we have our typical sign-offs for the first 12 conditions. Just had a couple of cleanup, missing, have part of a note number here, number 14, just had a missing part of it. We need to get the name and address of adjoining property owners located along the west side of the property. We need to note where the construction access is coming in. There is a drive that comes in through here between two banks that's going to lead us back here to this portion of the property in the rear. We had two discussion questions. One was to discuss vehicle screening between the shared use trail and the parking lot. There is a proposed share use trail that is to run along the back portion of this property that you can see coming through. And then they have proposed a parking lot to run up to the area where it looks in close proximity to where the new trail system is supposed to go. So at this time, they don't have the exact location, but they're looking for an easement to make sure that they have where it's the best laid land so that they can construct it. And then we also had a discussion about the parking overage. When the calculations with the calculations that they have done, they explained to us at the committee the reason for that we wanted to allow you all to understand the reason for. They have a they're showing a surplus of almost 200 spaces in their parking arrangement here. So with that, the vehicle use screening, what we were looking for was something, there's a vehicle use screening of five foot with a tree every 40 feet and a hedge row. So we were just wanting to know how far off that is going to be from where our proposed trail might be. we want to just make sure that it's not right on top of the trail system so we're just wanting to talk a little bit about what would be the best for that that i open it to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions questions for staff uh mr nickel this will be quick but i do commend our staff being concerned about over parking property so that's a very positive movement forward thank you mr you want to ask me okay all right okay we'll move over to the applicant Steve Baker from Midwest Engineering is here. Great. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Baker. I'm with Midwest and our client is, just to give you a little bit of background, our client is a company called Retina Associates of Kentucky, which is an an eye surgical company that plans to have upwards of 85 full-time employees at this facility and six different surgeons seeing about 300 patients a day. So really appreciate staff working with us. We've come a long way from our original plan and we certainly, you know, validate and understand the concern of, of showing an excessive amount of parking based as compared to what the minimum would be, but feel, we've worked through some justification for that. And I think for the most part, staff understands and I think agrees that there is some justification for some consideration for extra parking due to the nature of their business and the amount of volume of patients that they see and plan to see as they grow a company. So I'd be glad to follow up and try to provide additional information about that. if necessary. On the screening issue, I think that's a very valid point. Just share a couple things that I think may be solutions to that. The trail as proposed, obviously we're showing the 30-foot required easement, so the existing pavement as shown is at 15 feet from centerline of a potential trail. There's opportunity there, there's room to move that trail further back if staff agreed that that was advantageous. We could also add some additional tree screening, even some fencing if necessary. We'd be glad to work with staff to work through that and make sure that that concern is taken into account. We'd be glad to answer any other questions, more specifically on either of those two discussion questions. Thank you, Mr. Baker. I'll go with us to check out. Does any commission member have any questions for the applicant at this time? I'm not seeing any. We'll move over to any citizens who would like to speak either for or against this particular agenda item, please do so by raising your hand via Zoom. I'm not seeing any there. We'll close this part out and bring it back to the commission. Further questions or a motion? Ms. Plumlee? I have a question. What's the total number of parking? I missed that. 199. They're 199 over, but what is the total? So the total proposed parking is 249. Minimum required is 50, and that minimum is including the 15% discount on net square footage that we can take advantage of when parking is at a premium. So that's the accounting of the overage. Yes, sir. Mr. Baker, if I might ask, why are you going to build all the parking at one time? I mean, you're going to have 199 excess parking spaces now. Are you just going to build it all at one time, hoping you're going to need it? Well, that's a great question, and I think the answer relates. Really, there's two reasons for that, Mr. Penn. The nature of the business, our client anticipates needing the bulk of this parking on day one. On day one, they anticipate 85 full-time employees and seeing 300 patients a day. The second, I guess, reason would be just the feasibility of constructing. This lot has some excavation needs. You know, there's about 12 feet of elevation change from front to back. So we're going to have to move all that dirt to facilitate the parking and the walkout basement anyway. So it just makes more sense from a construction constructability standpoint to go ahead and and build it as part of the initial phase. Thank you. Thank you. I have another question. Will they be doing actual surgery there? Is this a surgery center? Do they have a significant need to be a surgery center? yes also great question that they they currently have uh about a dozen facilities like this throughout the state um and so they are consolidating some of their facilities to this location and they do have you know all the necessary uh approvals to to be in this business and and to build this facility thank you Any further questions? Before the committee makes a recommendation, I believe we can take the two discussion questions and make those a resolve before making a decision. 16 and 17 resolve. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. The floor is open. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir, Mr. Penn. I move for approval of PLNMJDP 21-7 with the revised 17 condition, changing 16 to resolve and changing 17 to resolve. We have a motion. We have a second. second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion for that motion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Okay. We got nine today. Eight. We got eight eyes. Okay. Any opposed? I think it's too many parking places. Thank you, Ms. Blumley. Okay. motion passes thank you very much all right okay all right so that should put us on page five of the agenda pln mjdp-21-17 and i do know that we have some speakers we have miss paula singer she's out there and i want to let you know that you are granted your eight and a half minutes to speak when that time comes. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, as stated, you are on page five of your agenda. It is a major development plan, 21-17, by Holmes Property and Lillian Hunt Speedway. And just to let you know that, of course, you saw this plan and disapproved it at your last meeting. They are, of course, legally allowed to file a new development plan. And, of course, here it is before you. They have a new one. And the purpose, of course, is to hopefully demonstrate that they've addressed your concerns. And with that, we have revised conditions, by the way, for you. This should be in your Google Drive. So here we are at Red Mile Road and Bersales Road. They are proposing a 4,600-square-foot convenience store at this location. Here, as before, you can see their pumps under the canopy. The canopy is just over 16 feet tall to allow proper access for larger vehicles and public safety vehicles under the canopy. They are proposing the access point here. This has not changed. This is the access point. It will be, as you were told before, a right in, right out. here we have the existing access it's going to be a little larger with this plan out onto red mile road so again we have the access point here and here these are the tanks and where they access the tanks that hold the fuel for the dispensers they are providing 24 parking spaces they have parking here in front of the store and in a small parking area at this location As you all recall, it's interesting in this large portion of the property is basically vacant and being maintained as green space. They're proposing detention that you can see in this area. Down here is also existing and a detention area for this particular property and other water that actually does flow into this area. Here, they're going to build a cul-de-sac at the end of Divine Avenue. Now, there was a lot of discussion, as I know you all are aware, about the Cardinal Valley Plan and about its recommendations. And particularly, the issue came down to not the use. And I believe, I think everyone's clear on this, that this is a legal use in this zone and that everybody accepts the fact that it is legal use and it's a use that can go here in that regard. I believe the concerns did center primarily on meeting the intent and the spirit, if they could, of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan in presentation, in orientation to these two major highways. And obviously, this is a gateway for Sales Road, a very important arterial. Red Mile Road, very important, heavily traveled road in our community. Again, in terms of use, staff is aware that there are concerns about the number of gas stations in the area and convenience stores. The concern with certain uses is not actually unusual. We hear that quite a bit in certain areas of our community with certain types of uses where people express concerns, where they feel like there's an overabundance of that type of use. And again, staff would just make the point that it is a legal use and is zoned for that. And we're not going to speak to whether or not more or fewer gas stations are needed anymore. I don't think that your staff would want to speak to how many shoe stores should be allowed somewhere. Again, these are market functions. But the issue of presentation to the highway, the issue of pedestrian safety were ones that the staff believes the Planning Commission made very clear to this applicant. Now, with that in mind, they have proposed to do improvements along Roussel's Road. They're not required to, but they're doing improvements. I think that's important to note. Through this redevelopment process, they are going to do improvements for Sales Road, including an eight-foot sidewalk, which will certainly address pedestrian facility and safety along their frontage. They are also providing improvements along Red Mile Road. Again, widening, turn lane, and pedestrian facilities. into their site. They are providing pedestrian facility off of Red Mile into their site and to the building. This is a well-defined sidewalk that will guide people into the building. From this direction over Sales Road, they're proposing a sidewalk up through here around the parking lot and then directly across this area, which they're proposing to crosshatch for the pedestrians to allow access to the store as well. And this, in fact, was a result of a staff recommendation. You can see they still have a sidewalk in this area that comes around as well. They're going to have a bicycle facility, air pump and that sort of thing to help with those folks, people that like to stop in the convenience store that may be, again, on a bicycle. So they are providing that facility as well. There is a drop in the terrain at this location, a change in grade. There's going to be a retaining wall here, so they have some challenges along this border, but again, they are proposing these well-defined pedestrian systems into their store. as to their presentation to bursell's road and and the fact that again uh it's a very important gateway and it's going to set the stage uh perhaps for additional development uh in this area they have proposed on this revised plan a horse plank fence along their frontage and along with a horse statue and a green area in this location, oriented, of course, to this intersection. Now, with that, there was a concern at subdivision committee about the architectural features on the plan. They've submitted a rendering that does demonstrate brick construction, brick facades and brick building and adding brick to the canopy and to the supports of the canopy to make those more attractive and to be in keeping with the architecture of the building. And that, in fact, is condition number 11 on your revised staff report that states that they will substantially comply with those submitted architectural elevations. In conjunction with that, staff is also recommending that along with the fence that they are proposing, they are going to be required to place vehicular use area screening in compliance with Article 18 of the landscape ordinance. Now, what that does is a tree every 50 feet with an 18-foot hedge. Staff didn't think that was adequate. So what we have recommended in condition number 12 is that the developer plant ornamental trees or shrubs from group B and or C of the planting manual, totaling no fewer than five plants per 100 feet of right-of-way. and staff took that directly from your Newtown Pike landscape ordinance. We took that standard and we were inspired by the horse plank fence, which is also an aspect of the Newtown Pike landscape ordinance. So that's the origin of that recommendation. And we believe that will help tremendously with providing a nice vegetative screen and presentation of this property, which will complement the fence that they're proposing along with the statuary in this area. And with that, again, staff does not want to belabor some of the discussions that you've had in the past and some of the issues with plans and that sort of thing. Then again, to state that when you view this in context, it is through redevelopment that we get improvements. Certainly, pedestrian safety will be enhanced along their frontage with the new sidewalk. with well-defined pedestrian access into the site. This is what we are asking of everyone now. Make sure you have good, well-defined pedestrian access. And again, enhanced landscaping for their orientation to the right-of-way, the important right-of-way. And again, these improvements will complement the current project underway by the state of Kentucky to improve the Fussell's Road corridor. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Yes, Mr. Penn. Tom, would you, with your new landscaping requirements, how tall is the, are you still using the hedge? And if so, how tall? They will have to meet Article 18, which is only an 18-inch hedge. And, of course, that's not much. That really isn't. And that was developed to screen automobile sales and service stations. And in this case, because of its location, because of its relationship, and it is a gateway intersection in that regard, staff felt it was important to recommend specific improvements to that landscaping. So that's what we're recommending are those ornamental trees or shrubs to complement. And again, we felt it was important to take that standard of five plants minimum per 100 feet of right-of-way frontage to help complement that. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. So right now I'm pretending that I'm delivering the gasoline for this station. So am I coming in off of Versailles and then I'm dispensing my product and then I'm coming out through Red Mile? Is that correct? And making a left turn to get back onto Versailles? Ms. Plumley, that would be best a question for the applicant and how they manage their site. Okay. However, I will say this, just from observing the layout, I would anticipate that they would probably access off of Red Mile. They'll have to answer that question because, again, you may recall, and I'm sure you do, one of the big issues that this particular industry faces, and your staff has dealt with it on other sites, is how to safely maneuver those fuel trucks on these sites. okay thank you i still have another question if you're can uh adapt that um i'm looking at the plan here and um it's kind of confusing because actually the front yard is facing red mile and the and not for sales as maybe we would suppose if we were driving by And I also noticed that the maximum building line is 20 feet, and you're using the edge of the canopy, the structure, to get that 20 feet. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. okay and and in this case uh usually we don't think as a structure being a building but right now you're using the structure as a building we're using the structure as the canopy yeah i would i would say this miss plumley a building is a structure but a structure isn't necessarily a building and it's defined in your zoning ordinance a structure okay you're saying a structure is not a building, but yet you're using... No, ma'am. No, I didn't say that. I said a building is a structure, but a structure isn't always a building. The Eiffel Tower is a structure. It's not a building. Okay. And our, our, our, our, oh shoot, our phone, our cell phone antennas, our big towers, they're structures, but they're not buildings. Okay, I just wanted to get it clear in my mind in that I just don't, you know, using that canopy as the build to line instead of the real where the pork lines and rinds and those things are back there, the other building. So, okay. We have interpreted and applied this standard in other locations. Okay. This is an application by your staff. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So next up, we had Mr. Nickel, Mr. Pohl, and Mr. Bell. I'll go on that order. Mr. Nickel. Okay, thank you very much. My first comment, I've got a comment and then a question. My first comment is, I really appreciate your presentation, Mr. Martin, where you described that the use on this parcel of property is a legal by right use. That is important for us to understand. And then we're overlaying a Cardinal Valley small development plan and trying to figure out how we can practically meet both needs, even though the legal use is being met right here. And I'm impressed by the thoughtfulness that the staff has put into this. And that leads to my question. Is there anything that staff asked for that the applicant has not agreed to do? That's a good question. Staff initially did have discussions with the applicant about moving the building up to that build to line. and in fact it could have been a 10 foot build two line now the result of that and it was an extensive conversation at times was although that might help presentation and might help pedestrian safety it complicated maneuverability and safety on the lot and again that's an issue we've had to address on other sites as well so so we did have that particular discussion it was a discussion and this is by right they it's a legal use and i'm impressed i mean they that corner they've created a gateway piece they've used horse planks. I love the fact that the pedestrian sidewalks are eight feet and we've got that additional north side sidewalk that allows for pedestrian uses of the convenience store because we know that these stores are probably more convenient stores than service stations. And we've got issues with pedestrian traffic down Versailles Road. So I'm impressed. You answer my question and that's my comment thank you very much thank you mr cole i have a detailed question uh what what's the staff's thinking with regard to the relationship between the plank fence and the landscaping and notice in the plan that the plank fence is to the outside of the property where the landscaping is inside the plank fence uh and i'm wondering if it wouldn't have been a better solution if the landscaping were to the outside of the plant fence, but I'd like to hear staff's opinion on that issue. Well, again, they inspired us just to go with the Newtown Pike Standards because that's the one ordinance where we have a fence, and so you are correct. Generally, that's how the landscaping would go, but there's no reason as we resolve this design with them that that sort of change couldn't be made, Mr. Pohl, if that's deemed a better design. What's your opinion on that? I'm inclined to support landscaping. I like landscaping a lot. So I like for it to be prominent and visible. That was my initial take also. But I could also see an argument where the... Well, anyway. Thanks. That's what I think. Yeah, it's very interesting. It is. Mr. Bell? Tom, in the subdivision committee meeting, Steve Parker with traffic referred to some cooperation that was occurring going down Red Mile Road and things with projects that y'all hadn't had cooperation before. Would you mind touching on that or if Steve could touch on that, Mr. I'd be happy to. Thank you. Again, they are doing improvements down Red Mile Road along their frontage. We have had, again, a project that's been in existence for years for improvements on Red Mile Road. And it's come from Broadway towards Versailles. And those improvements stopped some years ago. And you may recall the discussion about the large construction easement that's on this property. It extends all the way down on all the adjoining properties as well. And that's been there for years to allow that improvement project. But it languished. And that happens with various priorities. So what has happened is that because they are willing to do these improvements and do some sidewalks, and that's the key here, because we had two other projects, you may recall, the apartment complex, and the equipment repair where we got sidewalks along Red Mile Road. So there is, I guess, an enthusiasm now within traffic engineering and some other governmental agencies about reviving that project and getting improvements completed and done down all of that Red Mile frontage. Thank you very much. Any further questions for staff? All right. Applicant? Mr. John Woodall is representing the applicant today, and he may have additional... He's raised his hand already. He may have other members of his team who wants us to bring in as well. Okay. let's see here good afternoon there we go you hear me okay yep good deal good afternoon make sure we've got everybody here Tracy looking for David Daphne I'm here top left corner we brought Rick Porter and Eric and Eric Boyd and then I thought I saw someone from Speedway is that also someone you wish to I think we've got everybody it should just be Rick Porter if he hasn't been let in I see him now. A lot of faces on here. Okay. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, for hearing us again today. John Woodall, on behalf of the applicant, I'm going to try to make my comments as brief as possible. You know you live in a great community when so many people show up on a beautiful day to speak for and against a plan like this, you know, on Versailles Road and Red Mile. I think, you know, in reflecting on this a little bit, for me, this process has worked just like it really should, and that we went through the first hearing on what would appear to be a simple development plan by right, and you iron out some issues here and there, and that's it. But you quickly learn that this is a great community and people do care and this is an important part of it. So, you know, we heard a lot of things in that first hearing that we've taken to heart. We come back to you today, still recommended for approval by staff. The one thing that has changed is your subdivision committee also recommended approval. let me just quickly highlight what's changed about the plan and then and david's going to get into that a little more detail i believe it was commissioner pole uh asked a question at the primary of the first hearing about you know if it was possible to to move our pedestrian and bicycle traffic uh around the ingress and egress points so that they wouldn't have to to cross that. And as a result of that discussion, after, after that hearing, when we were going about the plan revision process, that's where we came up with that. And the, our engineering consultants work with staff to, to tweak that, to, to get it to where you see now. Another issue that we heard was, well, how are you accounting for public art? And if you look at the Versailles road corridor study, which is incorporated by reference with you with if you will into the Cardinal Hill small area plan. It suggests that the developer work with LexArts to come up with suitable art for this particular corridor. We have I can report to you we have had those conversations and and out of that, the horse mania second round or third round, I guess it is a horse mania starts in 2022, which would be about the time this store comes online. And Amy Sweetall is the president and CEO there now. And she and I actually had a conversation yesterday about a lot of things. We went to high school together. But in any event, you know, the question was, what do we need? What do you need to make public art happen at a location like this? And we show, I think it's a five by five pad now, but we have that entire area. Now, if it's a horse, which is what we envision, that's plenty. But the point is, one of the tenets of that corridor study was to try to bring LexArts into the conversation, which we've done. The other thing we learned, Commissioner Bell brought this up at the subdivision committee meeting. and coincidentally it's something we've been talking about internally was to in order to further soften the presentation of this site to Versailles Road was to brick our island columns and so forth where these dispensers are and make a lot better looking station so we've done that and David can get into that in detail and as far as the landscaping we are in full agreement with whatever staff proposes there whether the commission whether the landscaping goes on the inside of the outside of the fence I think we can we can do either I understand there's a lot of objection to this plan from from various folks but and certainly entitled to to their opinion I respect that, but I do believe that we worked really hard, this applicant has, to comply with not only the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, but the corridor plan as well, and if you, you know, Steve Parker, a traffic engineer, said it better than I could, and Mr. Bell made these comments a second ago at our subdivision committee meeting, all the things that this developer was doing at this intersection. And I, and I think that, you know, what, what the applicant has agreed to do there, it is in further accord with the Versailles road corridor plan, because that's where those suggestions come from, from staff. I can think, correct me if I'm wrong. But we're excited about this. This, this plan has come along and it's, it's I think this process has worked the way that it that it should have um i could speak all day about it and you know we took a long time on this the last time around i don't think we need to do that um i'll just pass it off to david here very quickly and let him further highlight our changes and what we're what we're doing here on the side john appreciate it um thank you all commission members um city staff my name is david daffron I spoke a couple of times on these past meetings, usually Rob's sweet. Unfortunately, he had another conflict. So I'm one of the planning project managers for Speedway. And just want to thank you all again for reviewing our resubmitted plan. You know, as mentioned previously, we had some concerns with pedestrian access as well as landscaping. And we're hoping that what Tom has presented, and I'll get into a little bit more detail, those items will help vote in approval for those. And so just as far as some of the items that we've gone over and revised on this development plan, first off, in general, we had a lot of traffic going on, not literally, but as far as text and things on the plan, that kind of made it jumbled a little bit. So according to staff recommendation, we cleaned that up. So to make it a little bit more easy to the eye and for viewing purposes. And as Tom mentioned, as far as this new plan, we've got a new pedestrian sidewalk that goes from Versailles Road. And basically, there's two options there. We've got the more pedestrian-friendly route, which cuts in front of our dumpster. We've got a painted crosswalk on the asphalt for safe and easy access to the side of our store. And then the biker route is what I like to call it, which we've got a bike repair area in the back, which I'll get into in a little bit more detail here in a minute, but to ultimately meet the needs of bikers and other pedestrians that would be in this area. With those changes, ultimately, you know, there's changes that you can't see on the plan that are more engineering heavy that we've had to update as far as making sure everything's ADA compliant. We did have an elongated retaining wall in order to meet the changes of that pedestrian route and then just different changes to the grading, which Tom has already mentioned, as well as moving the trash enclosure back 10 feet to create that more direct route to the store and provide that easy access and prevent any kind of jaywalking or anything like that. So bike repair area, it's kind of hard to, I guess, put such a small station on the plan, but we are proposing one of those bike repair stations basically for any bikers that have any kind of flat tires or needing to fix anything on their bike. The station will include just some of your basic tools as far as screwdrivers, wrenches, and whatnot to be able to fix, you know, any kind of issues that you may have with a bike and to ultimately create that intent, you know, to meet the small area development plan. Next, I don't know if planning staff could be able to show this, but we did submit a color rendering. I don't know if we can present that. If not, it was submitted. And if you'd like to take a look at that, I think you'll be able to see some of the other changes a little bit more clear on that rendering. And so I'll just kind of give it a minute. Is that possible to present here on the screen, Tom or anybody over at the. If not, I can share my screen. If you have it up, John, that would be great. Yeah, I'm happy to share my screen too. Sorry, I didn't know if that was a possibility, but it looks like John. There you go. Thank you, sir. So yeah, the next few items that I'd like to talk about, sorry, and let me get this full screen here. You know, the next few items you can see a little bit clearer as far as what's on this rendering. You know, as mentioned by, we are proposing half canopy columns, which was brought up by Mr. Bell at the last committee meeting, to give this a little bit softer of a look and to create a little bit more curb appeal for this particular store. And so we've got that. We were proposing to match the color of our building with the canopy columns, the remaining portion that's not seen or not covered up by the actual brick itself. and then you'll see here we've got the horse plank fence as mentioned by staff. Once again, we were just trying to create a softer look and try to meet the Cardinal Valley plan and the intent and that was one of the reasons why we added this and hopes that that would address those concerns as well as just add to the landscape in general. As you see, we've got some trees that we are proposing in front there. And then obviously staff's recommendation to put in the ornamental trees. We're happy to look into that and meet those requirements. And then, and lastly, I'll just kind of hit on, we've, we've, this horse statue over here is kind of a place setter. We have been in contact with Lex Arts and CEO, as well as the community arts director to work with them on displaying any kind of local art from local artists. And they sound pretty excited to be able to work with us, you know, not only at this location, but potentially, you know, other locations, especially with the horse mania coming up in 2022. So those are pretty much, that's the extent of the revisions that we've made to this plan. And at this time, I'd like to pass it over to who would be our region manager for this store, Rick Porter, who's going to talk a little bit more about some of the community benefits for us being at this location. All right. Good afternoon. I'm Rick Porter. I'm the region manager for Speedway. I have the stores in Lexington. So thank you for listening to us today. Okay. So you were asking David about any community outreach and fundraising. Is that the question there, David? Just some of the benefits of us being there as far as up creation and more so to that is what I was referring to. Sorry. No, you were breaking up there. Could you repeat that? But just some of the community benefits for us being there as far as job creation, some of the other community involvement that we're involved in at other stores. If you could talk to that, that would be great. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So I'll be quick here. So this store will employ about 15 to 20 employees. About 50 percent of them will be full time. The store will have a general manager. That general manager will be making over $45,000 a year, plus very competitive benefits and bonus. The store will have about two, maybe three assistant managers, one of those making about $45,000 a year or more, and two of those starting out a little over $33,000 a year. All of our employees get very competitive benefits and bonus. The remaining staff, which would be, as you guys would know, as cashiers, would be a combination of full and part-time employees, all making above $10.50 an hour. And as you guys already know, Kentucky minimum wage is $7.25. Many of you may already know that Speedway is a huge contributor to Children's Miracle Network. we've since 1991 speedway has donated 133 million dollars being raised by our stores and our customers in lexington specifically um you know we uh we raise funds to the for the uh university of kentucky children's hospital and we were number one in the entire country on highest store per average to the children's hospital there at UK. My region alone does almost $500,000 a year for the kids. And all those funds go directly to the hospital. We're really proud to be able to be a contributor to Children's Miracle Network and the local hospital there. The district manager who will be over this store, his name is Bruce Whitaker. And you may know him. I don't know. He's a lifelong resident of Lexington. He's been with Speedway for 30 years. He's a great guy. He also serves on the board there at the Children's Hospital there in Lexington. We have a lot of other programs and community outreach that we do to benefit the community. And we recognize anybody who volunteers their time, such as volunteer firemen, EMS, working at homeless shelters, food banks, and so on. So just a few benefits. I mean, this store would just add more value to the community, especially to the local hospital, and volunteering our time to help out the community. So thank you. Thank you very much, Rick. With that, we'll turn things back over to you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you, John, David, and Rick. Commission members, do you have any questions for the applicant, Mr. Nichol and Ms. Plumlee? My question is, what type of investment are you looking at in our community right now for the request for a buy right legal use and the presentation we're giving is pretty impressive. I'm just saying your commitment to this deal is impressive and the way you've worked with staff is impressive. My question is, what are we looking at? What's the all-in project costs for this location? David, I'm going to let you answer that. Yeah, that's a good question. We've got preliminary estimates around $4.4 million in total cost. And how many acres do we have right here? I believe it's right around one acre. 2.4 when you're putting together. Okay, 2.4. Sorry about that. Thanks, John. And so obviously the market, I mean, this looks like a good deal for you. You're willing to spend $4.5 million. You're willing to work for our community or work with our community to make it happen. It's pretty impressive, even though we may have too many gas stations on our sales road. I'm impressed. Thank you. Ms. Blumley. Thank you. I'll go back to my question before about how are we going to get the gasoline delivered? Could you tell me the route? Would it be off of Versailles and exit on Red Mile or how are we going with that? Yes, ma'am. I appreciate it. Sorry, I didn't answer that when I was presenting earlier. So basically, the truck route, you'll see on the plan, actually, we're in or off of Versailles Road. The truck would go in through there, fill up the tanks right there on the right-hand side, come around the canopy and back out to Red Mile Road. You'll see that we've actually worked with our transport group on this as well. We used to have two other parking spaces that were right at the corner where actually where that pedestrian sidewalk kind of comes in, the painted crosswalk, I should say. and there was two other parking spaces originally there. We're proposing painted, it's not a crosswalk, but an area to kind of black out so the truck can make its turn and safely circulate through the site so that it can circulate. Coming off of our sales and out through Red Mile, to answer your question. So most likely it'd be making a left turn on Red Mile. Yes, depending on the route of the fuel truck driver, it could be left or right, but I'd have to see who would be delivering fuel and where their next route would be. But I would assume, yes, it would be a left-hand turn. And I'm just kind of guessing, looking at the plan, that's about 200 feet from the stoplight? uh give or take i'm not 100 sure but i can do a quick measurement here sorry i appreciate you bearing with me Yeah, about 200 feet. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Bell. Yes, sir. Y'all mentioned this can be to any John, whomever. I was surprised in one of the meetings before how many how many super Americas there are in Lexington. Will you remind us how many you you have in Lexington? David, I believe the answer to that. Are we at 30 in this market? um actually rick i don't know if he's still on he might have a better handle yeah we have we yeah we have 21 stores in the lexington market uh we have three districts but if you would consider all the stores on the outskirts like winchester and so on it'd be about 32, but there's 21 in the Lexington market. So needless to say, y'all are well invested in Lexington. We love Lexington and just recently had a tour in Lexington. And the plan is to continue to grow because it's a great place to work and live. Thank you so much. Yes, sir. All right. Okay, not seeing any other hands. We can move over to the constituents. Any citizens that are out there would like to speak either for or against this particular agenda item, please do so by raising your hand. I will echo again Ms. Sanger, I will be granting you your time requested per your email. Yes, let's get Ms. Sanger first. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair Forrester and members of the Commission. I speak today as the designated representative of the Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association. We are here today to comment for the third time on a development plan in which little has changed since the first public hearing on 14th January. At that hearing, the commission voted for a continuance and the applicant was asked to look at the scale of what they're doing and how it affects the site viewer for sales road. And could they tweak their development plan to where it wouldn't be overpowering from Versailles road or red mile. The applicant was asked, is there any other configuration they could do that would make it less obtrusive? The applicant returned on 25th February. At that hearing, seeing the plan unchanged in scope or orientation, the commission voted to disapprove. following the vote commissioner penn summed up the situation as follows i think we're at a stage right now where the ball is in their court i think they've heard all of our concerns but short of something that's really a revised development plan it's going to be hard to swing this boat. They need to come back with something a whole lot better than what they came with. Here we are in May with the same 16 pump design plan, a few more trees, and a shared bike path that meanders along the western edge of the property until it crosses in front of a dumpster and ends at the convenience store. While the PATH is ADA compliant, it is not, as requested by the commission, a good, safe, efficient access that's going to be utilized. In fact, planning's bike pedestrian designee, Scott Thompson, said this at the technical committee meeting. The reality is we're going to see a lot of pedestrian and vehicular conflicts in the gas pumps and drive aisle areas just because people follow the path of least resistance. People have to go a long way out of their way to get there, the convenience store. And that's what we deal with, with these types of offset buildings that are way far away from the pedestrian connections on the roadway. And then we create a wild west zone in between where vehicles move as they do and people are supposed to intermix. which brings us to the 2013 zone text amendment for the B1 zone which included a new front yard setback requirement of 10 feet minimum and 20 feet maximum with the intention of accommodating neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area Within that 2013 update is the definition of lot line front, which states, Yes, 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. Your opinion in granting this privilege, this is not an option of the developer, but a privilege to be granted. Your opinion in granting this privilege to the applicant is what this case rests on. Your considered opinion is the safety net that the Division of Planning and Council stipulated in the definition so that no rulings would be made to the detriment of a neighborhood. How will this design be injurious to the existing or desirable future development of adjacent properties? This design now with additional art and additional trees. How will it be injurious? Small businesses intended to accommodate the neighborhood shopping, such as nearby South Hill Gallery Frame Shop and adjacent Hair Jordan Beauty Salon, will be overwhelmed by the highway sized construction. Neighborhood serving and sized businesses will choose not to locate in an area where their small signage and footprint will be swallowed up by the visual and auditory noise and accompanying litter created by this two-acre hub of vehicular traffic and gas fumes. neighborhood residents including those who live at the priscilla's house and the women's hope center would benefit from a grocery store where people in this food desert can shop for healthy fresh and affordable food desirable development will not occur in a crime ridden area a police open records request for the period 1-1-2018 to 12-31-20 reveals that the eight nearby gas stations accounted for 51 police calls related to robbery, prostitution, firearms, loitering, and narcotics. 18 of those calls, over one-third, came from the Speedway gas station at 2301 Versailles Road. Gas station convenience stores selling alcohol are known by authorities to be attractive nuisances. The nonprofit Community and Environmental Defense Services reports that studies show a positive relationship between crime and the number of outlets selling alcohol for consumption elsewhere or off sale in a given area. This is particularly true for low income and other stressed communities. approximately one-third of this development area will be unused green space at the rear of the property which will be illuminated by the gas station's ambient light combined with the off-sale alcohol and our fragile community this area will become a hub of unwanted behavior when a highway design is placed in a struggling community, the neighbourhood and its residents suffer. In conclusion, the configuration of the 16 pumps to capture Versailles Road drivers, the 193-foot-long canopy, the entrance to the 4,600-square-foot convenience store, The parking layout, the meandering bike path, the speedway signage, the proposed concrete pad and pylon sign on Versailles Road all lead to a reasonable conclusion that Versailles Road is the focus of this development. As such, Versailles Road must be the location of the front lot line and subject to the 2013 B1 Zota setback requirement intended to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area. One mile west under Sales Road, the Lexington Public Library, recognizing the needs of this residential community, has made a commitment to bring a new, larger, and reimagined library to this community. Please do not take away with one hand what the other hand gives. We are asking you to use the authority provided to you in the B-1 zoning ordinance and insist upon the use of Versailles Road as the lot line front for this development. I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. So we'll move to the next citizen. Council member. We do have two council members that have raised their hand today. Yes. Jennifer Reynolds and David Clover. Okay. Okay. Okay. Council member Clover and council member Reynolds. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Do you have a statement that you would like to make? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. Sorry, you called on both of us, so I wasn't sure. Well, good afternoon, Chair and Commission. I appreciate your willingness to let us speak and even give Ms. Singer extra time. And I do appreciate the changes that have been made to this plan and the time that is put into it to try to accommodate the community. In reality, I don't see huge differences. There's been modifications, but the possibility of having a lot of traffic on that corner, I think, is very real and concerning. the way that people are going to be going in and out both on Red Mile and Versailles. I just think that the traffic along with the pedestrian traffic and the bike traffic could cause some problems. What I'm asking you to consider is if this plan goes along with what is best for the community. When we talk about smart infill and development, we talk about preserving housing and not tearing it down. We talk about community input. We talk about engaging the community and then responding to those needs. And I don't see that the plan for this gas station is doing that and therefore is not going along with goals and objectives of the comp plan. I'm all for development and owners of property being able to do what they want within the constraints of the law. But at the same time, we have to consider our surroundings. We have to consider the people that live and work and use our roads and our sidewalks in that area. And I think that this plan is still serving the community. And I have heard from countless constituents, and I only make this statement because of them, because I support as a resident that lives very close to that corner and as an elected official that supports and advocates for my constituents, I have to say that I'm in disagreement still with the way this has been put forward. And so I hope that you will consider once again your decision and we'll make one that benefits the entire community and the importance of the Versailles Road corridor. And excuse me, I'm having trouble with my voice today. So I apologize for the lack of smoothness in my speech. But thank you very much. Once again, chair and commission. Thank you. Thank you, guys. This is Councilmember Kloiber. I did want to speak and thank you for giving me the time. I'm not speaking to any specifics about this particular deal. I know that when I saw the comparison between this map and the previous one, the similarities jumped out at me as being very similar. So I kind of wanted to come here and speak on behalf of maybe individuals in the community that have spoken to you in the past or people who could not speak to you again today. I just want to urge you in making this decision and in trying to figure out the best way forward that you just consider the feedback you've received from people in the community through the last time that this has occurred. and ask yourselves that if the changes being presented address those concerns that have been raised. I know it seems like a simple request, but I just wanted to come here before you and place it personally that, you know, when looking at this, I know in the past you voted against this. The similarities seem striking to me, and I just wanted to make sure that as you address this, you think to yourselves, do these changes adequately address the concerns of the community? And that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Can't see that next step. Braga? Yes. A lot of talk. Yeah. Good afternoon. Hey, good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes. All right. Hello, everyone. Thank you for giving me some time. My name is Leandro Braga. I'm a resident of the Cardinal Valley neighborhood. I'm also a graduate student in urban design at the University of Kentucky. I've been very keenly following the development of the comprehensive plan over the last few years, as well as some of the corridor studies, such as Imagine Nicholasville Road, that have been developing more recently. and just right off the bat I mentioned that to say that I'm a little perplexed at how so many resources can be spent on improving Nicholasville Road and studying what's going on with that corridor and how to make it better while simultaneously giving a serious consideration to a project on another major corridor that is exactly in line with the problems that we have identified elsewhere in the city. I will say that I am here to support the other residents of my neighborhood and the Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association where we've been discussing this issue. I'll be very forthright and say that I've not been privy to some of the previous iterations of this project. I've only known about it for a couple months, but just looking at the proposal as it stands right now. I think there are many things concerning about it, many problems with it. Mr. Woodall just recently, you know, a few moments ago expressed his opinion that this process has gone as it should, as it's intended to, as far as the city and the decision making. And I just, you know, I'm concerned that it's even possible for a project like this to be seriously considered, if indeed it is the proper pathways are being taken, the right discussions and so forth. I'm somewhat incredulous that we can be looking at in 2021 at a project like this. You know, as an ecologist who's worked in this watershed quite extensively, I'm concerned about the filling in of the detention basin, the redirection of stormwater flow towards a residential neighborhood, the increase in impervious surface area on the project site, the loss of tree canopy, all these things are pretty significant and taken together make me really question, you know, how we can be looking at something like this in our city as a service to the community, as a benefit. I do not think that the plan as it stands is something that really is in line with some of, as Council Representative Reynolds has said, the things that we are espousing in terms of the ideals of service to the community, service not just to the city as it exists right now, but future generations. This is a major piece of infrastructure that is going to sit on that corner and really display a lot of things about Lexington, about what our priorities are. And I would just like to suggest that we can do better and that this is a decision that, you know, like every decision you guys make, you understand that there are consequences for years and years, especially with this kind of physical infrastructure. And as a resident of that community, I just implore you to take a second and a third look. And I appreciate you having given me a chance to speak with you today. Thank you. Okay. Well, good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Walt Gaffield, 2001 Bamboo Drive. The Fayette County Neighborhood Council believe they deny this final development plan and are authorized in doing so because it does not meet the front yard standard. Versailles Road is its front and the building setback should be not more than 20 feet from the property boundary. The site design, and especially the street cross sections and Red Mile Road, also do not comply with current standards to foster and support walking, biking, and transit. Further, an amended PLAT is needed to consolidate the two lots and to resolve stormwater management and other easement concerns. A total redevelopment, including a subdivision plan, is obligated to meet current standards. The real issue, of course, underlying it all, is as follows. Every time you say yes in the present, you sometimes say no to the future. This is a little over two acres of land at a critical and critically changing corner. If the commission approves this development plan, that fails to comply with the zoning ordinance. We have minimal FAR, maximum autocentric design and traffic, and an investment by the applicant's report of a little over $4 million. dollars. Here you are not just giving incentive to the destruction of a fine missing middle apartment house of 12 units. Other B1 owners have become the hub target, the hub limestone, and the Thistle affordable housing project for over 200 families. Nearest to this corner and most recent is the Grogan's at Virginia Avenue and South Broadway and will become a five-story complex with housing and ground floor retail and parking like thistle. Angliana Avenue apartment housing has nearly reached for sales road. This corner land if approved for this development contrary to the B1 front yard standards will not be available for more productive use for decades to come. Please do not grant approval beyond your obligation and authority. When the B1 Zota was adopted in 2013 it furnished both constraints and opportunities a workaround was found for the front yard constraints on gas stations and it has become practiced at several locations by now it is a habit a subtle practice however there's no real precedent in commission action precedent begins in the courts the 2013 zota requires us to think differently it's high time we said no to any to any who waste the land our community so badly needs. Time to say no in order to say yes tomorrow to what we really need. Time to follow the letter of the law. It's a test of how or whether we're ever able to adopt and apply design standards in any meaningful fashion to any good effect. Thank you very much. Thank you. Lamont. Hello. Good afternoon. Hello. We can hear you. I'm sorry. I'm crossing activities. can i hear you yep we can hear you i'm sorry um i'm at a dental appointment i tried to hold on as long as possible anyway i'm lamont nolan i am the president of the uh pine meadows neighborhood association and i was just trying to uh speak on behalf of our association as well as myself and not rehash too much. But I'm in agreement with Paula Singer and the other speakers to deny this approval. As you know, there's eight, this would be nine gas stations within a two-mile radius. And I just can't see the need for another gas station. Although we do have a lot of traffic on that road, I just see it as a detriment to the development and what we want to show on Versailles Road as a development. And that's it. Thank you. Ms. Clark? Hello, can you hear me? Yes. My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road, and I appreciate your consideration. your very lengthy consideration of this corner, this important corner. If possible, I don't know if my materials were made available to you. There should be a number of files in the Google Drive. I also asked for four things to be shown, but there were problems with, I guess, the right email address. Do you have the materials? Yes, we do, Ms. Clark. Okay, wonderful. Then I'd like you to look first at number one or if it can be shown. Let me check on that. I think we can. Let me double check for you. That's splendid. Okay. I'm looking on that. All right. That would. Yes, and actually there are four, but I think these are fine, these three. Actually, let's go back because the thank you. So the top three here. And I'd like to ask you, which is the front of the store? What would a reasonable man deem the front of the site, a reasonable person? And I think we can see already that Speedway deems the Versailles Road frontage the front of the site. It labels it the front elevation. As such, the front does not meet the maximum 20-foot front yard standard of the zoning ordinance, the build-to line. In fact, the structure, which is not a building, the gas canopy structure, is, if you could roll down to the next one. Oh, and the left elevation below, that's what they would like to call the front for the purposes of shortening the front yard. And it would be the speedway canopy, the sign in the canopy there, 38 feet wide, that would determine the build to line. If you could roll then down to the next, it looks like you have the plan. Great. The plan, number two. And if you can enlarge it, I thank you very much. Hugely, I suppose. It's going to be a little difficult, but can you work with it? I can, if you can see it. I can barely see it, so I don't know what you can see. I've measured a number of things. The canopy is 36 feet from Versailles. Only the red end of the gas canopy observes a 20-foot maximum setback from a yard, from a building line along Red Mile. That's what they're using to define the front yard. It's a canopy. It's a structure. It's not a building. And they're using the side of it, not a front yard. So it doesn't meet the 20-foot maximum front yard standard of B1, the Build 2 line. No wonder the pedestrian path to the store is challenging. You'll see that you come along the western side from Versailles, and then you're crossing about 58, 60 feet across a crosswalk across to get to the store. The pedestrian path is narrow. It's shared with bicycles and it has a railing on one side of it. That's a challenging path because it drops off. So the railing is for safety. Along the front, the pale blue line is the sidewalk. You'll notice it's squeezed between the curb and the horse fence, which I think is the thing with little spots, the line with little dots along it. It is eight feet, but if you just for a moment scroll to the next image, there's the vision of the Versailles Road corridor plan, which is supported by council and is under implementation. Two sections of it are nearing completion. And further funding is in the next year's budget as a sponsored project. It's seeking funding. You can see there that this shared use path, which is eight feet as it is on this proposed plan has a two and a half foot grassy strip to keep you off the edge of the road. And that's where the right of way ends. The wish is that private individuals would offer trees as well. What you've got there is a horse fence on the proposed plan. If you could scroll back to the plan, please. Thank you. There's a vicious circle. This dive-in sort of fuel canopy with a long stream of eight double-sided dispensers means you dive in, you move quickly through it with your car, and you go straight out. I think most people will go out red mile, and they will need to turn left to return to Versailles Road. Quite a lot of the traffic, including the fuel trucks for sure, will be turned through, rapidly going through their gas dispensing and then coming out to make a left turn. Currently, the plat does not allow left turns. It's a right in, right out, and has been since the first version of this plat. So that's something that is not compliant with what is currently done and would require traffic engineering's approval. This access point isn't but 200 feet from an intersection with a principal arterial. so to have a high volume of traffic especially at peak rush hour it's sort of catch and release traffic on your way home or on your way wherever you you get your gas and you move on to churn traffic through that way is it's commuter oriented it is not neighborhood friendly um and as i said it would have to amend the existing plat which i think is envisioned um You are approving a plan, if you approve it, where the building crosses. Oh, you've moved the building so it doesn't cross the property line. The building is in the purple there, the store building. The canopy crosses a property line, that dashed red line there. That's the line between the two properties. There isn't even a note on the plan to say that no building permit shall be granted until the consolidation flat is approved. Look at the yellow stripe there. That's an electrical easement. The building and the canopy, you're approving a plan with a building and a canopy under a three-phase electrical easement. It generally does require about 30 feet. There's a speckled yellow path, which I only partly filled in, and that's their proposed alternative. This is an alternative that KU has not had an opportunity to review. I discussed it with them this morning. So this is not something that we have any indication will be feasible or is feasible. There is, I was going to say, major stormwater detention easement. There's a huge shift of stormwater detention from a long red mile to the rear of the apartment building. And in fact, it will take out a good many trees because you can't have stormwater detention underneath tree roots. They'll all come out. So that's another, I was calling it a major, but let's just call it a huge amendment to the existing plat and its stormwater detention. The electrical easement, another huge one. It needs additional right-of-way width for the accommodation of the pedestrian path along the front. you saw and we can see again if you please the Versailles Road corridor plan and you see that the grassy strip is missing the applicant has added one to two feet as the line waivers a little bit to accommodate the sidewalk alone if you roll down one more this will be hard to see, but let's try. Okay. What you have there is the proposed plan from the speedway. You have the Versailles Road proposed plan, and that would be the second cross-section you see. The third cross-section you see is what is currently required in the land subdivision regulations for a shared use path, such as is appropriate on this type of road. And it requires even more right-of-way than the corridor plan. So the existing subdivision regulations require a wider right-of-way width than the corridor plan. Because of this, any subdivision plat that is needed goes from possibly a minor easement plat, consolidation plat, and so on, to require the discretion of the commission. The commission alone is empowered and authorized to require additional needed right-of-way of an applicant. So that makes it a major subdivision plat. I would ask that you not approve this plan before a major subdivision plan is planned, is reviewed, or is at least deemed feasible in its many aspects. Many of these things are not, they aren't even listed as conditions of approving this development plan. It must comply with the B1 front yard. It cannot have a structure crossing a property line. It can't have it under the electrical. These things are in the zoning ordinance, but further things, basically you have a total redesign of this lot, a total redevelopment. And it requires all kinds of thinking. It requires more roadway width. It requires lots of easement issues. the traffic pattern churning through all of these things. So please deny the plan or at least postpone, continue it because there's more work to be done. And I would just second Walt in closing, which is the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. When you say yes to something, although it is not compliant with the ordinance and with subdivision regulations that must come into play at some point. When you decline it, when you say yes to this, you say no to the possibility of a much more community-serving corner B1 development that might otherwise come to be offered. Thank you for your time. I appreciate the extra time. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Okay, not seen anyone else so we're going to move over to the rebuttal stage applicant mr woodall mr chairman we appreciate the comments of those in opposition to this this application but once again we are in agreement with the conditions to be imposed by staff and appreciate those conditions and we'll once again agree to those and thank you very much that's extended my comments Okay, thank you. We had many comments from the citizens. It's not much rebuttal remaining there. Staff? There you go. Mr. Chairman, staff would like to wait and make sure that we are the last to present a rebuttal. You are. The applicant is gone. If there's any citizens that would like to present a rebuttal. There's no rebuttal from the citizens, Tom, because the applicant didn't rebuttal much. There's nothing else a citizen can say. Okay, so you're ready for staff? Yes. Thank you, sir. You are. Okay. Well, there's a lot I could say, but I think staff just wants to make a couple of things very clear. And that is, number one, your professional planning staff stands behind their review of the plan. We stand behind our interpretation of the ordinance, and we stand behind our staff report. and we will just have to respectfully disagree with those individuals that interpret the ordinance differently i would also add as a matter of education and this is important that everyone understand that some of these conflicts have been mentioned some of like easements and that sort of thing well these are all malleable they can all be changed and that is what development does and that's what redevelopment does it addresses these issues and we routinely change easements and modify easements so it's important i don't i don't want the waters muddied for you so you need to understand that when you redevelop a site a lot of things are going to change and these issues are going to be addressed and they are going to be reviewed and addressed not just by your planning staff, but our co-workers, our professional co-workers in engineering, traffic, landscaping. We work with a really fine staff here, ladies and gentlemen, and we look hard at these plans, and we're going to see to it, and my co-workers are going to see to it, that it's done correctly. Now, I would also like to remind the planning commission that there is you're seeing this development plan because they're combining two lots there is an existing b1 lot with a fast food restaurant on with the existing access points that could be occupied by a fast food restaurant with no improvements nothing done to that site this plan is actually reducing access by one access point so not only are they making it safer that way they're doing pedestrian improvements uh and and again they're they're trying to address the orientation to the highway as well but but staff's largest concern again is uh is when the waters are muddied for you by by information that is really not applicable uh in all circumstances and certainly not in this circumstance. And again, issues with lot lines, land subdivision regulations apply when there is a subdivision of land. The lot line considerations with buildings relate to the fire code. And that's when those issues get addressed. And this plan was reviewed by your technical committee of which KU has been a long time an active member. And the KU representative is very outspoken on development plans. They're generally not a sign off, but he has been wonderful in all the years that I've worked with him in notifying developers and applicants of conflicts and things they need to be concerned about. So, again, I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. All right. So hold on one second, Mr. Nickel. Do you want to ask this question before I close this session, part of the session out? Mr. Nickel. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Poe. Oh, you do? Oh, you're shaking your head. I thought you meant, no, sorry. Oh, sorry. um this question is for mr martin um and our professional staff that we're really proud of um please help me understand um the difference between as it relates to this development plan the difference between a zone change and the development plan that we're looking at right now as it affects the buy right use on the property? Very simply, Mr. Nichols, am I? I thought I was muted there for a minute. Very simply, when you're granted a zone change, you are granted that that zone and all the uses within that zone. A development plan has to comply with that use and with the other requirements of Article 21 that address the physical development of the site. So a zone change establishes your by right use in any zone. And of course, we have to be very lucky here that we can condition zone changes, and we do. Mr. Poe? Yeah, another question for you, Tom. Could you explain, it seems to me that the argument with regard to the setback has some validity. It seems to me that there's no question that this development plan is, the front yard is on Versailles Road. I understand that they can designate whichever road the front yard is on, but at what point does that become specious and deliberately circumventing the intent of the ordinance? Because it certainly seems that way to me in this case, but tell me why I'm wrong. um well you're wrong in the in only this sense that they are meeting the ordinance and the interpretation of the ordinance with a setback that applies to structures and they can designate their yard um of course when you have automobile movement on a site there are certain uses that do finesse that setback that they're allowed, that structure setback. Give you an example, the car wash on South Broadway met that setback with, in essence, what is an attachment to the building. It's structurally connected to the building. We've had that same issue with a front porch patio area on a restaurant where they extended as part of the building their patio. to meet that setback. But it has been an issue, again, with fast food drive-thrus, with these types of uses, because it is difficult to make the site function unless they do. And I would say they finesse it, yes. I mean, I don't know if that helps your comfort level any on that particular issue. But again, And it goes back to a consistent interpretation of the ordinance and the definitions in the ordinance. Yeah, I guess I'm troubled by the thought that should the relationship between the building and the canopy be reversed so that the building is placed 20 feet from Versailles Road, that would solve a lot of problems for the community, but it would create a lot of problems for the developer. And, but it's the community that has the requirement and there's a reason why the requirement is there. And it's just difficult for me to understand where that line is where we say, well, you know, The intent of the 20-foot setback can be ignored in this case because A, B, and C, that's troubling to me. I understand your concern, Graham, really, and staff had conversations with them to try to see if they could work that out and get the site to safely function. Again, it's an existing B1 site on an arterial. You could take it even further and philosophically say there shouldn't be B1 on an arterial, but we are dealing with an existing situation and an existing site, hoping to get the absolutely best result for the community and the applicant as well. Thank you. Sorry, just to reiterate, that is a great point. I mean, I think the question, I think, should we have B1 on arterials? That's a great point. I really appreciate that comment. And I think that's kind of what we're discussing right now. But we are looking at a development plan, and we need to make some sort of decision on it. But I really like that idea. Should we have B1 on arterial? That's a great point. Thank you. We'll close this part of the session out and bring it back to the commission for further discussion. Ms. Plumlee, Ms. Nichol, I'm going to get Ms. Plumlee this time. Please do, please do, sorry. Thank you. Going back to that thought about B1 on arterials, that would be nice going forward. we are dealing with today, but we also have a development plan that is out of context in being colossal. B1 is supposed to be a neighborhood development, and this exceeds that. A neighborhood development is something that you walk up to, and it's for the neighborhood, And this is not for the neighborhood. It's for for sales road traffic coming from wherever. And if we go back to the comp plan, which which is we all should keep in the back of our mind, even though this is not a zone change, it's a development plan. that like to theme A, that the highest density for residential development should be on a corridor. So this would be a great plot for a residential development eventually. And if we go back to theme A, policy four, generally locate high density areas of development along higher capacity roadways. And so it would enhance for future transit. There is a bus line there already. Theme B, sustainability policy. Three, transit-oriented development. Encourage transit-oriented development increased density along major corridors. So I still think this plant, even though it is by right, I think it is very wrong. Because I think we can do better with this property that it's too big. It's too much. The fuel trucks turning left 200 feet from a stoplight. there's just a lot going on here that it's too busy it's too much and I don't like this thank you thank you Ms. Blumley Mr. Nickel a question for Mr. Martin do we judge development plans by the comprehensive plan or what do we judge development plans by Well, we judge them by Article 21 of the zoning ordinance and any applicable other standards that might apply. And again, they are associated with by right development in a zone that should generally comply with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Good answer. Thank you. general discussion yeah yeah i'm ready right now for the general discussion okay mr pen uh i made that statement that mr singer quoted me on that when they went back and took a look at this i thought there's still a chance that they might come up with a plan that faced red mile road and didn't face uh for sales road to marry on the ground situation there that i still thought it was possible for them to do that and down the road they'll be sorry they didn't because red mile road will be a really thoroughfare road but we can't change that and as much as i'd like to agree with what the neighborhood people are saying and i have respect for walt and all the rest of them I don't think we have the latitude to not approve a plan that's by our rights because we don't like where it's facing. Now, I guess you could hang a technicality on that building line, but I struggle with the idea of turning this plan down because I don't like the orientation. That was what I was hoping they were going to change. I do like the changes they've made, but does it really change the plan? It doesn't change it a lot, except makes it safer. Thank you, Mr. Penn, for your comments. So the floor is open for any additional comments or a motion. Mr. Nickel. yes i would like to make a motion to approve pln-mjdp-21-00017 ball homes property in lillian hunt speedway located at 1318 and 1320 for sales road lacing kentucky and i would like our to cite our professional staff's recommendation of approval with their 15 conditions that are outlined in our packet. 12 conditions on a revised recommendation. Do you want to make that change? I will make the change to 12. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second to the motion. Mr. Bell, that's your second. Okay. So we'll do it like this. Any further discussion to that motion? Mr. it oh yeah could we add a 13th uh condition that the uh landscaping be placed to the outside of the plant fence yes if that's it i would like to add a 13 condition to represent mr pole's recommendation that the landscaping is outside of the fence it'll look better. That's a good suggestion. I second that. So we have a motion, a revised motion, which was adding 13th item to adding the landscaping outside of the fence and it's seconded by Mr. Bell. And outside of the fence, we mean the Versailles Road or Red Mile Road frontage side with the fence behind it to the property side. Is that correct? Both. Is it both, Mr. Poe? So from the road right-of-way, you would see the shrubs and trees first, and then the fence behind. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. All in favor, please raise your hand. So we have one, two, three, four, five, six. Is it six? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Sorry. 7. Any opposed? Please raise your hand. 1, 2. Okay. Motion approved. Pass. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Thank you all. Have a tremendous weekend. Thank you very much. Y'all take care. Great. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we did. Okay. So next up, we should be on the zoning items. Page seven, PLN MAR-21-3. We have revised staff report and development plan with that. And that revised staff report is recommending approval. No, I'm not. Sure. Hi. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will go ahead and start this PowerPoint for the presentation. This is the presentation for the Windmill Development LLC, PLNMAR 21-00003. Typically, we will have these kind of meetings on the fourth Thursday of every month, but this was actually postponed to this date. And as we are at approval and there has been no outreach from any of the neighborhood, I'll try to go a little bit quicker on this one. This is for a portion of the property located at 1100 Armstrong Mill. The applicant is seeking to rezone three sections of the property to the R3 or the Planned Neighborhood Residential Zone. You can see here on the left, you can see that they are seeking a zone change from these R1 or the single family categories to that planned neighborhood residential for a total of 5.86 net and 6.0 gross acres. They are seeking to apply this under the enhanced neighborhood place type and the medium density development type. For this application, they are proposing the development of a multifamily complex. So it would be grouped under the group residential development within our zoning ordinance, which Mr. Martin will talk about in a little bit. But they are seeking to construct four three-story multifamily structures with three and two-bedroom units, and then the associated parking. The development proposes a total of 96 units at a residential density of 10 dwelling units per net acre. Now, I will point out that that 10 dwelling units per net acre, that kind of seems small from what we have been seeing for a lot of our multifamily developments that have come into the area over the past 10 years or so. But there is a very large floodplain associated with this. We are located at the confluence of the West Hickman Creek and one of its tributaries, which you'll see in the aerial photography. For location of the property, we are along Armstrong Mill Road in between Apian Way and Tate's Creek Road coming down this way. If you remember recently, we have gone and looked at a few other zone changes in the area, one right over in this area. I'll zoom in a little closer onto the zoning. you can see just the historical development of the zoning in this area with the areas to the north being the primarily the single-family detached and then areas of townhouse development, duplex development, and then multi-family development. This aerial photography gives you a bit of a better view of what has occurred in land use, as well as the vision of that confluence of the West Hickman Creek, which is running down this way, and then the tributary that actually comes and you have the confluence of these two waterways at this location. That confluence and the extent of this floodplain was one of staff's major concerns earlier on with this, and which led to the postponement of this project. This site has one entryway off of Armstrong Mill Road here, and it is right next to that confluence. Staff wanted to ensure that should this property be developed and shifting from its current status as a vacant church, that individuals who are entering this property would be able to get in safely, not only from a pedestrian standpoint, but also a vehicular standpoint. When we were first looking at this application, there was concern from the Department of Fire for Lexington that even they would not be able to get their trucks into this site. Since then, staff found out that, yes, the fire department would be able to get into this site safely. And the applicant is proposing modifications to their roadway system to bring it up above what a 100-year flood event would be. So the applicant is showing safe egress and access into the site, both from a pedestrian standpoint and from a vehicular standpoint. Another major aspect of this development is the connection to the facilities that are planned along Armstrong Mill Road and in through this property. This is the location of a planned multi-use or shared use trail that would run along the floodplain and extend down and connect over towards Tates Creek Road. This is a major aspect of our future transportation network and a major piece of infrastructure for Lexington, as well as a major potential amenity for the users of this site. here we get a better view into the property on this top left you're looking at the Armstrong Mill Road going towards Tate's Creek center looking into the site itself you can see just the roadway that has been constructed for the use of the church looking down Armstrong Mill Road towards Apian Way and then as we get to the bottom of this, you can see the floodplain of the site just kind of leading into the creek. Here we're at the tributary looking down West Hickman Creek right here. And then in your bottom right, you can see the church. And also a major aspect of this is a lease that has been given associated with this cell tower. And this cell tower is quite an impressive structure, as you can see right here. It includes a substation in which they are routing a lot of these co-located cellular relays or radars on this site. So it is a major aspect of the site itself and is located at the rear of the current church and is planned to remain and be situated at the rear or the side of one of the buildings. You can see actually in this bottom center photograph how close this property is to the established multifamily, which is located to the northwest of the subject property, or primarily to the west. There was a fair amount of conversation during the early review of this about how we could potentially connect in between these two sites. The applicant was not able to secure some sort of agreement with the neighboring property owner. However, in the future, we would like the applicant to remain flexible, especially with the access that is being provided over to the trail system. It would be the betterment for both their residents and the neighboring residents to have that kind of access through there. And then in this lower left-hand corner, there is a small playground associated with the church. And then you can see just the extensive nature of the floodplain leading towards Tates Creek Road. With any review of a zone change application, we do need to put into context the actual location of the site. In this case, the applicant is seeking to apply the enhanced neighborhood place type. This is where there are existing residential areas that can be enhanced by either amenities or a differential kind of housing type. It should be connected. It should create that sense of place. And it should have multimodal connections that are critical to the neighborhood success. I do want to stress the connections and the pedestrian activity for something like this, as it will come up with the small area plan that is also applicable for this site. In terms of a development type, the applicant is seeking to develop this as a medium density residential development type. These are primarily attached or multifamily units. The applicant is proposing multifamily at this location and is meant to enhance the existing development throughout the area with quality connections. There is a push for the integration of commercial and employment uses and green spaces that can be easily accessible. This goes back to the importance of the shared use trail and the importance of those connections to this site and between Armstrong Mill Road and Tate's Creek Road. And then getting into the variety of needs from a commercial and neighborhood serving kind of development. development. Associated with this development type and this place type is a set of recommended zones. The applicant is seeking to rezone this property to the planned neighborhood residential, the R3, which is a recommended zone. In staff's review of the context of this site, we agreed with the applicant's application of the enhanced neighborhood as there is a fair amount of residential in this area, and they are seeking to develop an agreement with what is happening to the west, which allows for a step down in intensity as we go to the east. As we go from the multifamily to the west, this would be multifamily. We'd have the barrier with the creek in that location, and then stepping down further to townhomes to the single-family detached. So this is actually a very good step down approach in housing options in this area. With the medium density residential, they are proposing a three-story structure with this, and that really does fit with the design types that are recommended for medium density residential within the comprehensive plan. So staff agreed with that as well, and that the R3 would be appropriate at this location. associated with this with the comprehensive plan is the Armstrong Mill West small area plan. It is an adopted element of the comprehensive plan as are most of our small area plans. Within the review of the Armstrong Mill West small area plan, the main focus areas or the focus of this plan was really on placemaking, enhancing connectivity, which was a major goal within this plan, enhancing the pedestrian environment. This is going to be coupled both with what they're trying to do on site, but with also some governmental projects that are occurring along Armstrong Mill, improving public safety through the design that they are trying to implement, re-greening impervious areas, improving access to housing. This is actually a specific focus on affordability and also a focus on trying to get individuals into home ownership. While the applicant is proposing apartments here, they are not really focused on the home ownership side of things, nor are they providing a true capital A affordable project here. But as you know, and as staff reviews all of these, affordability does come in various different levels. And then also creating a healthy food oasis. And again, this isn't really the focus of this type of application. Just a quick steal from Mr. Martin's future presentation. This is a review of what the applicant is proposing at this site with the connectivity connecting off of Armstrong Mill Road, entering into the site with four multifamily structures located along the, I'm sorry, the western boundary of the site. One of the major aspects of this, as you can see in the blue hatching, is the extensive 100-year floodplain. The applicant, with what they are showing here, and I apologize, actually this blue is the floodway. The floodplain actually extends well back into this area and drops down, extending across the site. So that gives you even more of a view of how extensive this floodplain is and how the applicant is really hemmed into a very specific area in which they could develop at this site. You can see the proposed public trail that would be snaking its way along the floodplain near the extents of the floodway. The applicant has provided two areas of safe access to this potential trail, or this planned trail, located right back here, shown with a crosswalk. And then, oh, I apologize. And then located up at the front. and just going to move our faces, located in the front right here. This trail is a major component of what the applicant is providing on this site, and it goes to meet a fair amount of some of the design standards recommended within the multifamily design standards in Appendix A of the Comprehensive Plan, but also a major component of that small area plan. So with the additions of the information that the applicant has provided over the past couple of weeks, as well as their updated development plan, staff is now able to recommend approval of this application as they are in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan for the following reasons. They are proposing to grow a successful neighborhood, accommodating for housing in a higher density development that mixes some of the housing that is in this location. Yes, there is multifamily already located here, but there is still a prevalence of the single family detached and attached located nearby. So incorporating a little more multifamily does go to allow for greater density to be observed, especially in an area that is so heavily impacted by floodplain and floodway. The proposed development will support infill and redevelopment by redeveloping a currently vacant parcel of land that is not displacing any type of single family or multifamily that would be in the area. The proposed rezoning will achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system by focusing on that pedestrian first design and providing that pedestrian access to the Armstrong Mill Road and the shared use trail. The proposed rezoning also allows for those safe and positive social interactions to the neighborhood, including but not limited for the pedestrians and other modes of transportation. This is actually very important with the information that we receive from the applicant about bringing the roadway up and making sure that we have a safe access and egress into and out of the site. And then the proposed rezoning will absorb vacant and underutilized land within the urban service area and accommodate it using that higher density housing type. In addition, the applicant is meeting the development criteria for the enhanced neighborhood place type and medium density development type, as they are meeting the site design, building, form, and location goals, the transportation and mobility goals, and the green space and environmental health goals. associated with this the proposed rezoning is in agreement with the Armstrong Mills West small area plan as the proposed development will improve the circulation of users by focusing on that connectivity and alternative transportation infrastructure and increase the safety on the street specifically the safety from water hazards as well as and that is a small area plan goal two as well as improving some of the safety and security in the area by reducing some of the vacant land, which was specifically called for, and increasing a little bit of the lighting and providing activity or that eyes on the street mentality that is typically called for within secure by design or accepted the crime prevention through environmental design. uh the finally the the proposed rezoning will maintain that character of the neighborhood form and enhances the areas in that are in need of improvement by redeveloping this vacant lot uh finally as with all zone changes this is made subject to the approval of plm mjdp 21-00011 lfucg mill creek subdivision uh unit 3 and jonestown which mr martin will talk about here in just one moment. So with that, if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them about the zone change at this time. I'm not seeing any questions, Hal. All right. I'll go ahead and share this screen again and turn it over to Mr. Martin. All right, thank you. I'm unmuted and good to go, I believe. Well, you've seen this plan and Hal did a good job of orienting you and explaining it to you. And again, you can see that there's access off of Armstrong Mill Road at this location into the parking area. They are required 155 spaces. They're providing 158, so we're certainly not dealing with an overparked situation here. Again, the buildings are located along the perimeter, the three-story apartment buildings, as you can see here. And this, of course, is the tower, cell tower location. As Hal pointed out, this site is dominated by this floodplain, extensive floodplain, floodway in this area. He mentioned the floodplain line up through here, and that is correct. And the applicant is going to have to pay very close attention to how they develop in this area and be conscious of this relationship in terms of grading and getting the parking in here and meeting the requirements of your Article 19 that governs floodplains and development associated with floodplains. Al has already mentioned there was a concern with the entrance and through here, as was verified by our public safety folks, they will be able to get their trucks through here and have plenty of clearance should there be a flood event. They will elevate this area, both the driveway and the sidewalk, to ensure that the residents can access this property should there be a flood event. So the trail that Hal mentioned is very important. We'd like to stress that this relationship, again, because of the floodway, floodways are heavily regulated on the federal, state, and even the local level, but particularly federal and state level. And as a local government, we have to meet those requirements. and we have to pull permits as well. So one aspect that staff would like to again reiterate on this trail and how important this type of infrastructure is at the time of the final development plan which you will see staff would like to continue to work with this applicant to to set this up correctly and prepare it for having a trail in the appropriate location through this property. And as Hal mentioned, you can see access from the apartments and the sidewalk system to the trail. And again, that's important. There'll be access for Armstrong Mill as well. Hal has mentioned that it's 96 units, primarily two bedrooms. And I've mentioned the parking to you. They do meet the perimeter setbacks that are required. In that regard, it's a fairly straightforward plan, again, dominated by the floodplain and those requirements. This plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee, and previously, there was concerns at that time, which this revised plan has addressed. Your staff has prepared a revised recommendation on the plan, which is in your Google Drive, where we are recommending approval of this plan subject to some fairly basic sign-offs for a preliminary plan. And again, there's a couple of items. We were going to denote that improvements to Armstrong Mill Road shall be determined at that final development plan. And again, they have a limited amount of frontage, but we want them to coordinate again with the public improvements that are happening along Armstrong Mill, and then as well as the trail location and construction along that creek because it is a challenge to do that correctly. And at the time of the final development plan, we would like to work with this applicant to ensure the best location for that trail. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about the plan. And stop, share. Here we go. I like looking at the plan. We're talking about the plan. I can't. I'm not seeing any hands. Tom, oh, Ms. Plumlee. You're on mute, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. The question is, there's just that one road in. Yes, ma'am. Correct. Okay. Oh, yes, ma'am. That heightened our concern about our emergency vehicles in the floodplain. now okay all right we'll move on to the applicant mr simpson yes um wait wait you just promoted the jewelry table. That's okay. And then luckily Mr. K. Lee. And then roll. Did you move him? Oh, you got him. So now back in the panelist. All right. Can you hear me? Yes. Very good. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I know it's been a long day. as usual, you all have entertained a lot of testimony already. I'll try to be very brief. Your staff has been quite thorough in their documentation of our compliance with the comprehensive plan. This is a challenging piece of property. It's been vacant or had been vacant in terms of opportunities for development for a little bit more than two years. It was a former church site. During that two years, no church has expressed any interest in the site for a church, primarily because the church is in very poor condition. There's a lot of infrastructure problems associated with the church. take a great deal of renovation. And in fact, some of the engineers state that it's beyond being renovated within economic justification, if you will. So there's going to be significant expense in having to remove it. Then, of course, you've got an ugly blight of a cell tower that stands conspicuously on the property. And then you have a very narrow strip of property that can be developed because of the extensive floodplain. So it's been bypassed by a lot of people in the development community. So it has a lot of challenges that many other properties don't have. But we have before you today a proposed development that has addressed all of the pertinent issues that have to be addressed and have been approved in connection with many of the provisions of the comprehensive plan that are most important. And so we agree with the staff recommendation for approval. So there is, as I listened to staff presentation, one item, though, that needs to be clarified, and that has to do with the shared use trail. Because our application with respect to the shared use trail, there was never any dispute about dedicating a 10-foot easement for this shared use trail. It's about 1,500 feet long, and the shared use trail is 10 feet wide. And we had proposed to work with the government in the construction of the 10-foot trail. 10-foot wide trail. That also includes the funding of this. This is going to be a very expensive trail to use, and there's also liability issues that will have to be worked out on the future maintenance and whether anybody gets hurt on that trail. The public is walking on it. This is not like a sidewalk. This is an amenity in which the members of the public will be walking on private property, not like along a street, a public street. So it's a different kind of situation. And so Mr. Perry is certainly willing to work with the government in the construction of this trail, but he needs some help in working out the funding as well as the legal obligation in doing so. So I just wanted to make that clarification and connection with, as we work through this in terms of the final development plan and get this project up and running. Other than that, we agree with the staff's recommendation. We look forward to making this project very successful and a contributing member of the Armstrong Mill community. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Do we have any commission members like to ask any questions for the applicant? CNN? Or Mr. Kaley, do you have any comments or additional comments? Good. All right. Thank you, sir. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak either for or against this particular agenda item? Please do so by raising your hand. Okay. We have Julianne Campbell. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, good. Thank you. I'll be brief. I just want to make sure you received the communications from the South Gainesway Neighbored Association. I'm the current president. Did you get the comments from us? I'm going to check. Within the applicant's submission package. Right. And I also sent a personal note from myself as well. I just want to make sure you got the two documents. Those should have been put in your Google Drive. If you do not have them, I can get those in there right now. Just to make sure. I really appreciate it. Just real briefly, I won't belabor the points in those documents, but I guess I'm a little confused. This is a new process to me. Since there's been some change in the last month or two in the details of the plan, we have never received any of that through the mail. or notification about that. So is it fair at this point, you know, to have a decision from at least a comment from us without full chance to review any updates and changes that have been made? I wasn't sure about the legal status of that process. Can anyone address that please? Julian is getting you're getting your answer in a second. Mr. Campbell, this is Tracy Wade with the Division of Planning and the Planning Manager for Planning Services. Our notification system requires one notice to be sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Then we also notify the Neighborhood Association, any Neighborhood Association that falls within that 500 feet. Notary if there are none, we notify the closest neighborhood association so you may have received the notice to the neighborhood association and or a property owner as well but once the notice goes out you are not um there's not a trigger that sends another notice unless the applicant postpones before the hearing so all right all right but the current plan i can see the details on the website can i see it there Yeah, can Mr. Martin, can you pull back the final plan that they displayed? Generally, the plan is very similar to what the applicant submitted originally, although they shifted some square footage out of the floodplain, as well as removed a clubhouse that was wholly within the floodplain, and that was to meet the zoning ordinance requirements in terms of structures not being allowed in the floodplain. Thank you. Well, I'll be real brief. I mean, I don't want to belabor the point. It just seems to me a little strange that we haven't had a chance to see the details. And the trail is a new trail feature in the plan there, which is a good thing, of course. That's something we'd like to see. I guess the main problem concern that we have in the neighborhood still is the traffic issue. Can you hear me still? Yes. I think everyone is concerned about the traffic in Armstrong Mill is not great and it's getting worse and we're going to need a traffic-like system at the bottom of the hill by the bridge maybe a two-way jog system I know some of that may be in the works already but I just would like to recommend that the traffic department look very carefully at the situation there with regard to having another 100 or more than 100 residents coming out on that narrow road onto Armstrong Mill Road at that point it could be problematic from the traffic point of view. So I would hope that you would actually look at that carefully before agreeing on any zone change before you do that. And Mr. Campbell, may I ask, to whom did you send your second letter to? I emailed it to Tracy and folks about, right before the last meeting, when it was postponed a month ago. Okay. There was a personal note for myself, you know, as well as the actual official neighborhood communication we met about. We will make sure that that is put into the planning commission. I'll let you go. I'll ask you, can I wrap it up with a plea that I really would like it if the Armstrong Railroad small area plan got updated and revisited. And I guess I'm speaking to the staff here. It would be really good if we could actually meet in the short term and see where we are with that plan. And it's been several years since we attended those meetings. And really to make it a vibrant, working, effective plan, I think we need to have at least an annual update where we can discuss things in the details like a trail system and development at this site, for example. So I just hope that whatever happened to this site, maybe we can improve coordination and communication along the Armstrong Mill Road corridor. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. Not seen anyone else got their hand raised. So it was raised for the last one. Our hand was raised when we were doing the last application. The whole application? Yes. Oh, okay. I've been paying attention. She got 40 more areas like that. So bring us back to the commission for any further discussions. I've added Mr. Campbell's email that he sent last month as well as the Gainesway neighborhood letter to the Google Drive. So if you want to take a few minutes and let people review that. We can also ask if Mr. Parker needs to address the traffic concerns. That was going to be a question I was hoping that one of the commission members would ask but if you'd like for traffic, they can make a comment to the statement that Mr. Campbell had, a question about the traffic. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Parker. How long is that? letters. It's a few pages. Okay. There we go. I'll be glad to answer any questions you have. I got knocked off there for a second. There was a question about the traffic coming on to Armstrong Hill from this particular site. The location at the bottom of the hill is a challenge. I don't know of any improvement plans currently in the works for Armstrong Mill, but we do feel that there's adequate capacity for Armstrong Mill at this location. There are actually roadway improvement plans that are, I think, going through the state system for Nancuda Trail. I only know that because Scott talks about it a lot. I thought there's a trail coming. Okay. Thank you. I can speak to that just a little bit more, just because I had some meetings with Mr. Thompson. So the trail itself has been planned. If this were a subdivision of the property, it would actually be required to be provided for this location. It's planned for the trail itself on this property was called for within the bike and ped master plan, as well as the greenway master plan. For the Armstrong Mill Road improvements, they are planning for a shared use multi-use trail along the north side of the road with sidewalk facilities on the south side of the road. This is primarily occurring to the east of the subject property coming up to the bridge. They're still working on how the bridge might or may not be widened at that location and improved for future development as it is a little bit lower into the floodplain and they're still working that out through the state and with the state. Thank you, Al. Ms. Boxdale. So with regard to vehicular traffic, you know, I know that part of Armstrong Hill is a little dicey in the evenings and mornings when you're making a left turn from either direction, whether you're coming from Green Tree or if you would be coming out of the development, what do you plan to do to help ease that traffic burden if you've got so many people turning out during business hours. So this will be really the peak average usually in the morning and in the afternoon for this site. Typically with residential, it's a lower threshold of cycles of traffic. However, Mr. Thompson has indicated to me that there are potential changes for a lighting along Armstrong Mill at some point in time in the future. and that lighting would provide breaks in the traffic that would allow for safer access and egress from the site. And that would provide a little bit of a better situation for this site. But in terms of this specific development, staff sees the carrying capacity, and this is in conversations with Mr. Emmons and during our staff review meetings, staff sees that the roadway currently is within its carrying capacity even with this proposed development. But Mr. Parker did note that this is at a low spot. So typically within any type of development, we don't like them to be on really highs or really lows. We like that flat kind of site triangle. But in terms of trying to have this site be developed as well as to get a greater amount of density in this area, while also trying to promote pedestrian safety, create greater amounts of access into and out of the site. Staff saw this as an improvement for the area. Any additional questions from the commission? Okay, we'll close this part out and the floor is open. for a motion? We'll need two motions if someone decides to do that. Yes. Go, Frank, go. What? All right. I've got some. I've got both of them. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MAR 21 and 3, the reason provided by staff. Okay. We got a motion, a second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion? I see any. All in favor, raise your hand. Okay. All right. Motion passes. Okay, all right, motion passes. And then on the revised development plan, the subliminary plan, PLNMJDP 2111 with revised 10 conditions as presented by staff. We have a motion on the floor, seconded by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Okay, so we should be on page 8, commission items, amendment to adopt a meeting. We're going to change our working session or add our working session to our May 27th meeting. Do we need to make a motion to approve that? Yes. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. I move that we have an amendment to our schedule, which would include a work session at our regular May 27 meeting. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second. Seconded by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes. Staff items? The last thing on the agenda today, the staff items, those are for informational purposes only. They are related to the 50% report that the engineers are required to provide prior to moving forward with their construction and then ultimately subdivision of blocks. So we've received four recently. We just wanted to share those with you. They should be in the Google Drive. And usually there's no concerns with anything. But they do have to share those. Yeah. All record that this has been out there. All right. Let me see it. Is there anything else, Mr. Duncan, that you have for us? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for another good and productive day, a lot of work. And we do appreciate the attention that you pay to these very, very important cases. And that you are so flexible with your meeting and filing schedule. So you may recall that earlier we asked you to change next week's meeting, which is Thursday, May the 20th, which was scheduled as a work session, to change that to a public hearing. So all we will be doing next Thursday, the 20th, is holding a public hearing for the Imagine Nicholasville Road Corridor Study. We'll be presenting that to you as an amendment to the comprehensive plan, much like we do with small area plans. So that item will be on Thursday, the 20th. And then just as you have done, we will add a work session to the zoning hearing meeting on May 27th so that we can keep these text amendments moving as we implement the comprehensive plan. So again, we thank you for your flexibility so that we can make the most efficient use of your time and keep our improvements to the zoning ordinance and implementation of the comprehensive plan moving along. Mr. Chair, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, if I may say. Yes, sir. I just want to reiterate what was said today about the staff and how extraordinary y'all are on keeping us informed and educated. And it's truly a privilege to work with you. So I just want to say that. Thank you all. Could I make permission to comment? Yes, sir. I want to be noted that we started at 130, we're through at 435, and we had no potty breaks. So I think that is it. That's an advantage of Zoom, Frank. You can kind of like wander off, baby. I don't have that privilege down here. I would suggest that whoever, wherever Mr. Penn is, that they call the custodian or someone to check around this chair for any damages. hey no don't say that my legs are sitting close to him man I think we've digressed far enough yeah yeah thank you everyone hopefully you get to enjoy the remaining time of the day Graham are you in town or are you out of town you in town okay I read your lips I'm in town I'm going to be gone for the next two meetings so okay Mr. Chair, I think we ought to follow Graham wherever he's going and have our meetings there. Yeah, Graham and Jan, they tend to take nice trips, but I guess that's what it's about when you retire. We're going to Yellowstone. Yeah, I may follow you, but that's a good place. We can have some eruption there just as well as we can have some eruption here. I hope you said disruption. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. Well done. Take a ride tonight Gonna shine tonight Take a ride tonight