Music guitar solo No time to wallow in the mire Try now we can only lose And our love become a funeral pyre Come on baby, light my fire Come on baby, light my fire Try to set the night on fire You know that it will be untrue You know that I would be alive If I was to say to you Girl, we couldn't get much higher Come over and light my fire Come over and light my fire Trying to set the night on fire Trying to set the night on fire Try to set the night on fire Try to set the night on fire Tried to amend my carnivorous habit Made it nearly seven today Losing way without speed eating sunflower seeds Drinking lots of carrot juice and soaking of a race But if not I'd have these wonderful dreams Some kind of sensuous treat Not zucchini, pettuccine, bulgur wheat But a big warm bun and a huge chunk of meat Cheeseburger in paradise Tap on all the cookies and onion slice Not too particular, not too precise I'm just a cheeseburger in paradise Heard about the old-time sailor men They eat the same thing again and again Warmed in breath They said could raise a dead Well, it reminds me of the menu at a holiday And times have changed For sailors these days When I'm at port, I get what I need Not just habanas or bananas or daiquiris But that America creation All which I feed Cheeseburger in paradise Medium rare with mustard tea knife Heaven on earth with an onion slice. I'm just a cheeseburger in paradise. I like mine with lettuce and tomato. Pots, 57, and French fried potatoes. Big kosher pickle and a cold wrap farewell Good God Almighty, which way do I steer from off? Cheeseburger in paradise Making the best of every virtue and vice Worth every damn bit of sacrifice To get a cheeseburger in paradise Be a cheeseburger in paradise I'm just a cheeseburger in paradise I like mine with lettuce and tomato Hot 57 and French fried potatoes Made kosher pickle and a cold red beer Well, good God Almighty, which way do I steer? I wake up every morning, I stumble out of bed I stretch it and I yawning another day ahead It seems to last forever and time goes slowly by To baby knees together Then the stars can fly Cause the moment that he's with me Time can take a flight The moment that he's with me Everything's alright Nighttime is the right time We make love That is his or my time We take up My baby Takes the morning train He works from Nine to five And then he takes another Thank you. go right ahead mr chairman okay thank you good afternoon everyone it's now 1 30 welcoming you to the urban county planning commission subdivision and zoning items i'm going to call this meeting to order first up i'd like to read the governor's statement due to the covet 19 pandemic state of an emergency and governor steve beshears excuse me governor beshears executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 assigned by the governor on March 30th, 2020 and Attorney General Opinion 20-05 and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for this meeting. Next on the agenda item, we have approval of minutes, but we don't have any minutes, So we're going to skip down to performance bonds and letters of credit. I'd like to have a motion to accept the performance bonds and letters of credit, which is on page 9, item C. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the performance bonds presented by staff. Okay, thank you, Mr. Penn. We have a motion and a seconded by Mr. Healy Bell. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Penn, I think you're frozen with a smile. That's a good idea. I don't know how you get frozen in this kind of way. Before we get to the next agenda item, I was brought to my attention at one of our fellow Zoomies' birthdays today, Captain Greg Lingo. I think he's turned a big 5-0 today, so I'd like to wish him a happy birthday. If he's on. Yeah, we need to see your face. See what 50 looks like. See if he's on there. Mr. Chairman, if I may add to that, it is our traffic engineer, Steve Parker. It's his 50th birthday today as well. Oh, happy birthday. I'm ready to go for them on the show. Yeah. Steve Parker's not on yet. Steve's not on yet. There he goes. Hi, Captain. Hey, Captain. Happy birthday to you. Thank you all very much. I'm glad to be here. Glad to be fishing. You know the odds you make it to 100 or slim, so you're fishing over the hill today. I think you're correct, and I'll enjoy today for sure. Thank you. Happy birthday to you. Thank you. You're welcome. You're welcome. All right. Well, had a little fun there, so we get down to it. Next on the agenda items, number three, postponements or withdrawals. staff or applicants. We do have a few hands raised. Okay. First up, Matt Carter. Thank you, Ken. Can you hear me? Yes, now we can. All right. Thank you. I have a withdrawal of an application. It's on page eight of the agenda. Item K. PLN MJDP 21-00028. 028, William Shelley, subdivision. We'd like to withdraw this plan. We plan on kind of regrouping and rethinking what we're going to do with this property. So at this time, we are going to withdraw this plan. Okay. Thank you. Any questions to that request from the commission member? not seeing any the floor is open for a motion for a withdrawal of the plan mentioned by mr carter miss plumley thank you mr chair move withdrawal for pln mjdp 2128 william shelby as uh indicated by the applicant thank you we have a motion and seconded by mr de mogel any further discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Yeah, motion passes unanimously. Ben cannot raise his hand at the moment. The camera is frozen, but he said yes. Okay. Who's next? great okay oh he's here good afternoon great good afternoon members of the committee um i'd like to direct your attention to page four item c under preliminary subdivision plans PLNMJSUB21-00001, Belmont Farm Unit 7, Coventry, amended. Our client would like to request a one-month postponement on this project. Still figuring out the best way to address the lots that are on this plan. Just need some more time to coordinate with planning staff on this. Thank you, Greg. So we have a request for a one-month postponement. And the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Penn? I move for a one-month postponement of KLMJSUB 20-1 for a one-month postponement until July of the... I don't know if it's... Okay. Okay. Thank you. Second. Second by Mr. Pol. Further discussion to that motion. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all. Okay. How do you do, Mr. Kaley? Morning. Good afternoon, Planning Commissioner, Members of Planning Commission. I have an item to postpone. I might have the wrong page number, but I believe it's on 7. Item F. It's the Kingston Hall plan. MJDP 21-0009. we request an indefinite postponement. There's a cemetery study that has to be completed first. Okay. Thank you. The floor is open for a motion for an indefinite postponement. Mr. DeMovlin. I'll move for an indefinite postponement of PLN MJDP 21.9 Kingston Hall Unit 1 and 2. Seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Any further discussion to that motion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next, staff. Consent agenda. We do have a number of cases that appear on the consent agenda this afternoon, so I'll read through those and then ask if there's anyone present this afternoon who wishes to have any of those items removed from the consent agenda for discussion and presentation to to the Planning Commission. There are nine items today. The first is a final record flat. It appears on page two of your agenda. Item 1B, PLN FRP 21-24. The application is MRS Real Estate LLC property, located at 8660 Tate Street Road. There is also a sign that is required to be posted for this property for the subdivision to proceed. Second item on the consent agenda is the preliminary subdivision plan recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. Item that appears on page 3, item A, plan 2003-209P, Masterson Hills and Masterson Station, unit 10. This is located at 2,900 through 2,918 and 3,000 square roads. The next item is on page 3, item B, Plan 2007-197-C, Master's and Hill, Unit 1, Amendment 3, located also at 3,000 square roads. These two items are requested for reapproval, thanks to older days. The next three items are requested for the award well or an extension. The next, these are development plans, appears on page four, item A, VDP 2015-52 for the Clark property unit four. This is located with an address of 1551 year pavement lane. It's also in the expansion area and there should be a sign for that plan as well. The next item is on page 5, item B, PLN MJDC 19-68, the Peninsula and Squires Apartments and the Mid-Education Development Plan for property located at 440 Squires Road. Next item, page 5, item C, PLNMJDC 20-16, Perry Street Townhomes for properties located on Perry Street between 213 and 229 on the odd side of Perry Street. Turning to page 2 of the consent agenda, there are three more items. These are development plans recommended for conditional approval by the Subcommittee Committee. The first is on page 6, item E, PLN NJVC 21-6, Wiggins & Company, Chick-fil-A, an amended development plan for property with an address of 2514 and 2520, Nichols Hill Road. Next, page 7, item 8, PLN, NJVC 21-23 for the Schroer property, also known as the RTA property, Locked 3 and 4. This is property located at 1009 and 1017 Wellington Way. And then the last item on our agenda appears on page 8, item I, PLN, MJB 221-24, the Blackford Property Apartment Cemented and Secure Justice, Glen Eagle, Unit 1E Property, includes three addresses of 666660 Manowar Boulevard, as well as 2975 Tolosa Boulevard. That item also requires the posting. And I would just ask if the staff has received, I don't have them in my hand, the three affidavits for the three properties that need to have signs posted, which are on Sheaks Creek Road, the Clark property in the Exchange Area, and then also the Blackfield property, if we're in the people's ways. Tom, Cheryl, Lauren, do you have any questions? In the meantime, let's ask if anyone in the audience wishes to have any of these nine items removed from the consent agenda today, today or if any member of the planning commission wishes to have one of these presented for further discussion. If anyone can raise your hand in the attendees section. Yes those affidavits have been received by staff. Thank you Lauren. The galaxy Galaxy A02s, whoever is on Galaxy A02s, if you've raised your hand, I'm going to allow you to speak at this point. Galaxy A02s, please unmute yourself. Hello? Hello? Hello, Lee. I feel that Glen Eagles should not have this apartment building put there. So would you like to speak to that case in front of the Constitution today? What was that? Well, we're asking if anyone is here to speak about one of those plans. So one of the ones I mentioned was the Black personality Glen Eagles plan. I would like to speak about that. Okay, great. So we will pull that from the consent agenda and then we will take the rest of our plans in order on the agenda today. So that one will be a little bit further down. Okay. And what was your name? My name is Ethan. Ethan? E-T-H-A-N, Ethan. And your last name? Combs, C-O-M-B-S. Thank you. So the case that she referred to was the last one. Item I. Yep. I'm not seeing any other hands. There's another hand raised. Okay. On it. This is about 20. that's only one now okay all right so as a commission um have the consent agenda in front of us and also make a note that we will if we accept this we are deleting item I on page eight for the approval. The floor is open for a motion of the consent agenda. Move to approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Less the item I on page eight. Thank you. We have a motion. Back to property. Okay. The motion is a seconded by Ms. Barksdale. Any further discussion? I've seen any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously with the revision. Thank you. So it should be on page two, final subdivision plan, item 1A, PLN, FRP-21-3. We do have a waiver request as well. Okay, yes, thank you Mr. Chair. This is FRP 21-3 for the NDC property, Unit 1A, Lot 21, Wellington, amended. This is located at 351 Meyer Way, and we also do have revised conditions for this as well. This is in the Meyer Shopping Center that is off Reynolds Road, and this amendment is creating lots 21G and 21H from the larger parent tract. This plan was approved by the Tech Committee on February 24th of this year, and the applicant has worked to correct majority of the conditions since that time. They now wish to purchase the property or portion of prior to constructing all the infrastructure improvements. And so they have now requested a waiver of articles 4-8 and 6-6 of the land subdivision regulations. And that's in regard to the sanitary sewer public improvements. So they have addressed most of the cleanup conditions. There are just a few remaining items. We need the property owner and developer, both clearly denoted. I think currently just has the owner. We also need that note for maintenance and other easement areas per 5-4G of the subdivision regulations added to this plan. And we also still need the urban county engineer certification added as well. Finally condition 12 is provided that the Planning Commission approves the requested waiver of land subdivision regulations. That waiver request is to the substantial completion requirement that would allow the plat to be recorded prior to the completion of the extension of the public sanitary sewer lateral infrastructure that's needed for the property. And during the construction of the of the Jiffy Lube building which is supposed to be going on 21G and other site improvements that sewer line would be constructed concurrently. So there can be no occupancy of the proposed building without the construction and acceptance of the public sanitary sewer lateral. Granting that the waiver will not negatively impact public health and safety and staff is recommending approval of that waiver request. So with that I will open it up to the Commission for any questions. Any questions for staff? Thank you. No questions? African? Hello, Commission. Thank you for having this meeting with us today. Basically, I concur with everything the staff has stated. Just a couple additional pieces of information for your use. The sewer line running to lot 21G, the lateral extension, the design plans were approved by engineering for that yesterday. So we are now approved through engineering to build that line and it will be built, obviously, in conjunction with the building of the Jiffy Loop facility. And then the other piece of the other partial 21H, that partial is being retained by Myers. And even though there is a sewer that is accessible on the east side of Rusio Way, they wish not to install a lateral across the street to the property at this time because they currently do not have plans for constructing on that side. It will continue to be parking lot. But since we were subdividing off the parcel for the Jiffy Lube, they also wanted that parcel subdivided off. So that's mainly the reason we are requesting the waiver is because right now the lot just will remain parking. And if they decide to do anything, any development on it in the future, they will be having to come in for a development plan at that time. And I'd be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant, the commission members? I'm not seeing any. Do we have any citizens who would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. I'm not seeing any. We're bringing back to the commission, close this part out, and the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chairman, do you want the waivers to split the motion? No, I think we should do it in two different motions and include a revised condition too. You ready for a motion? Yes, sir. I'm ready. Mr. Chairman, I'm looking for approval of PLN FRP 21-3 NDC property with a revised 12 conditions as presented by staff. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second for that motion? Seconded by Ms. Meyer. Any further discussion? I'm seeing any. All in favor, raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes. Now for the waiver. Mr. Chairman, I move for training the waiver of PLNFAR-D21-3 NDC property with the waiver request as presented to us. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Seconded by Mr. Cole. Any further discussion to that motion? Not seeing any. All in favor, raise your hand. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a good day. You too. Okay. It should be on page 4 now. Item D, PLN, MJSUB-21-2. Okay. This is the Hillenmeyer and SFH properties as amended. This is located at 2373 and 2405 Sandersville Road. So we have Sandersville Road along the southern edge of this plan and then Greendale Road along the western edge. And this amendment is just revising the street alignment, the lots, and some of the general notes. We have most of our typical sign-offs on this plan and then just two additional items. We need the average lot size and the site statistics updated. And then we do have one discussion item about the removal of a subdivision entrance along Greendale Road. So the previous version of this plan had a second access point around this area along to Greendale Road. And in lieu of that second access being removed, we have asked for a a pedestrian connection in this area and six foot wide sidewalks along greendale road and with that i will open it up to the commission for any questions questions with staff all right seeing none i'll hope mr nickel all right i do have a quick question about the width width of the sidewalks so i thought in our we're looking for four foot sidewalks not six foot sidewalks even though i prefer six foot sidewalks what's the methodology behind that or the thinking behind that right so this plan has is asking for an eight foot multi-use trail along greendale road um the applicant has said that they can only do four feet six well yeah so we Yeah, I don't think I have. Yeah, sorry. That's quite hard. There's some history out here. So, Mr. Neville, when this property was originally approved, they placed a multi-use trail inside the stone wall along Sandersville to service a pedestrian feature. And we had discussed having that trail continued along Greendale. and so that would be eight feet normally there are some site constraints with utilities and with stone walls along greendale so our discussion with them was well okay we'll compromise give us a six foot pedestrian facility as opposed to eight feet uh and we do believe there might be some constriction points here and there but that can be worked out they can transition the facility. Fantastic. We did have a good discussion with them on that and we do think that that can be worked out. Great. We need to keep those nice looking walls. Yes, sir. That's one of the things we've been working to do out there. Thank you. Moving over to the applicant. Good afternoon, Rory Keeley with EA Partners. Yes, Nick, I don't see him list up there, but he's traveling. He has had conversations with the plane staff, and we were agreeable to along Greendale Road. some of that sidewalk uh half of it's already been built where it's not been built and where the site is feasible we would um go ahead with the six foot sidewalk as requested by traffic engineering and with that we were agreeable to the conditions requested approval thank you any questions for the applicant okay mr pen glory uh the sidewalk has been built you said the one that hadn't been built. How wide is the one that has been built? Along Greendale Road, it's a four foot sidewalk. That's what's been approved on our plan for eight, ten years. This is kind of an older plan. It was approved in sections before we got it and consolidated it in all into one drawing. Along Sandersville, it was a eight foot trail that's been constructed from our entrance to the west and as they came around the point coming with Greendale up north they transitioned to the sidewalk and they've built it more than halfway up there it's into the recorded lots. The real constraints we have are at Calendula and Greendale with a lot of utility poles and and guy wires in the way. So the forefoot is going to function with the six foot? You think that'll work? Well, it'll have to just transition up to six foot from where we're at as we continue forward. Depending on the site constraints, it will be six or four. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Penn, are you... Yeah, I was just going to ask another question. Okay. Any other commission members have any questions for the applicant? We're not seeing any. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. I'm not seeing any. We'll bring it back to the commission for the further questions or discussion. Yes, sir, Mr. Penn. We talked about a pedestrian connection where we eliminated the entrance. Is that still on the plan to have the pedestrian access? It is, sir. Basically, we are kind of squeezing or kind of taking land from two of the existing proposed lots in order to basically have a pedestrian connection from the single family road out to the meandering path. And it's in the approximate same location as where the original sidewalk had been, had that entrance remained. So basically, we're keeping the pedestrian infrastructure, but we're taking away the vehicular infrastructure and reducing the number of access points to a substandard road. It'll be wide enough that people feel comfortable using it? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. And I do apologize. I'm trying to zoom in from the Brown Hotel right now. I have a hard time to feel sorry for you. You could have left that part out, but we'll get there. You know me. It's full disclosure. any other questions for from the commission members if not the floor is open for a motion mr bell yes sir mr chair i move for approval of plnm js ub 21 to hillenmeyer and sfh properties with the conditions as noted. Thank you. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Polk. Thank you, Mr. Polk. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks. All right. Next on the agenda item, page 5, item D, PLNMJDP-20-79, Stonewall Shopping Center. that was a continued discussion traffic engineering is going to be up Cheryl's going to do it alright thank you how you doing Cheryl let me find it oh there it is ok alright can you see we are at the Stonewall Shopping Center this is Clay's Mill Road, Wellington Way we have New Circle Road, so we're south of New Circle. We have the shopping center, and then on the corner lot here we have the C-Store. This development plan was, previous development plan to this plan came in and they were adding a 24-foot access from the shopping area into the location where the C-Store was, or is, and then they also added the restaurant. So that development plan went through, was approved and signed for 24 foot wide access. The corner lot came in with the C store and their development plan, actually their development plan came in for the C store prior to the development plan with the 24 foot access. So they came in with the convenience store. They had no access point drawn in the convenience store. That plan was approved and signed and they pulled building permits off of it so that they could build the convenience store here, gas pumps here. Then the shopping center came in adding the access point, the 24 foot wide access point. That development plan was approved and signed and they pulled permits to start doing the improvements of putting in the access easement. Now the corner lot didn't have that access easement drawn. They came back in and submitted a development plan, had it approved, but it is not signed. It is now expired, but they have a, they received their certificate of occupancy so that they could have the store, but they do not show the access between. So currently this property here was not developed within the development plan's design. The development plan that we have in front of us currently, they're wanting to ask, they're bringing it back for continued discussion because they want to widen this access point from what was originally approved on their plan. And that is where we are. Like I said, this plan was originally approved with a 24 foot wide access point and now they're wanting to increase the size of it. It had all the same conditions as far as the sign off. We haven't made any changes to their sign off conditions. I can open it to you all or Mr. Parker's here that he can speak also. This plan was for a 24 foot access. It was heavily reviewed when the gas station came in to make sure the functionality of the site would work. The applicant and the adjacent property owner constructed a 65 foot plus opening across that property line. So it's not in compliance with any access points that the Urbaga government has. We have tried to work with the applicants. And option one would be to build what was approved at 24 feet. We allowed for movement of that access point along the property line at 24 feet. and that was deemed unacceptable to them. And the applicant proposed a 36-foot wide opening, and we decided to compromise at 30 feet to be consistent with other recently approved gas station locations that the traffic engineering has reviewed and signed off on. and we feel that the three options that we have offered are very reasonable. We do not like the fact that this was constructed outside of what was approved, what was reviewed by staff, and we feel that the 30 feet is a compromise between what was submitted. but now I'm not sure what size opening they're proposing now. At current it was built and it's greater than 65 feet of opening between the two properties along that property line. If anyone has any questions I'll be glad to answer those. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Yes, Mr. Penn. Steve, that 65 foot that was built was not built to the development plan, right? That's correct. The development plan showed 24. That is adequate for a drive aisle. We're concerned about when you, the wider the opening, the more opportunity for confusion among drivers and pedestrian safety. So we feel that the 24 feet is adequate. 30 feet was a compromise to try to move this plan forward and work with the applicants. It is a forgiveness situation, and we understand mistakes happen, but we felt that offering three options was reasonable. Just that has not been accepted. Thank you. We move over to the applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Hill. Yes. Good afternoon. We're going to, Adam Bender is on the call with us here. And the owner of the shopping center, Eli Mashney, is on the call. Steve Estep, who owns the C-Store, we spoke to him this morning. Unfortunately, he had a conflict, cannot be on this call this afternoon. But what we want to do now is Adam has a short presentation to try to show you the constraints while we're asking for a 50-foot easement, or excuse me, an access entrance there as opposed to the 36 of the 30 that Steve just referenced. And we're going to try to, again, show you that it's needed. It's just a really constrained situation and hopefully justify the reasoning behind it. So if you would, Adam. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'll share my screen for just a brief presentation. So this is an aerial of the existing site, the way that it was built with a 65 plus access point. And you can see what we're proposing here is to extend this curb out, create a 50 foot access point. So apart from that, when speaking with traffic engineering, there were two other concerns that he raised. One was there's two pumps in this island that we are planning to relocate. We're showing one up in this corner. However, we could maybe put it down at Clay's Mill. Either way, the point is that we're willing to work with traffic on that. I think that's easily resolved. Adam, you may want to clarify those are air pumps, not gas pumps, air pumps. Yes, sorry, air pumps and vacuums. The second was this existing parking area out here and off to the screen to the right. It's an older shopping center. It doesn't meet today's standards. Stephen Parker requested that we bring this up to code, 18-foot long parking spaces, 24-foot drive aisles. This means that we lost a few parking spaces, but we're willing to comply, restripe this parking lot, reduce some curb, and bring that up to code. So the only other issue, the last remaining issue, is this accident point. As Stephen Parker said, 30 feet, he feels, is the widest that he can approve without an action by the Planning Commission. So that's why we're here today. We don't think that 30 feet is appropriate for this site. 50 feet is very appropriate, and I can get into exactly why we came up with that number. But first I want to start with we explored the idea of a 30-foot wide access between these two properties. We went out to the site and put in these traffic cones. and you can see the cones on the right-hand side is that new curb line based on the restriping I mentioned a moment ago. This shows a five-foot wide island and a 35-axis between the two. And you can see already that this really constrains traffic movement around these pumps. One of the most important things to a good traffic pattern is creating something that's predictable. And traffic coming off of Clay's Mill Road, moving on to this site, generally people expect to find a gas station that allows full two-directional access all the way around these pumps. This site's doing well, and as you can imagine, there are many, many times you come on to the site and all the pumps are full, And so you're driving around looking for a free pump to get into. And this movement around here is constrained. This dimension from a car being parked here, and this is a midsize car, is about 14 or 15 feet. So it's really limiting the way that traffic can move around. and anytime that anyone moves onto a site and sees something confusing more often than not they stop right next to clays mill road this can cause a lot of issues and so there's a big concern with having this 30 foot wide constricted access point causing problems on clays mill you can see this this area as well it's it's fairly constrained it is has been working well this site's been open for a year and a half and they haven't had any issues but doing any kind of work on this curb to try to pull that back is very likely going to cause the potential for traffic backup on a quays mill and wrecks so even apart from traffic patterns we have trucks accessing the site now this is a different day there's no cones out there i just wanted to show you how a dumpster truck gets on here and services the dumpster. They've just accessed the dumpster and backed up. You can see they're next to this car, but there's nothing limiting on the right-hand side. It's all open, and so they're free to back up. And they are exiting through the shopping center. Now, any kind of curb in this area means that they're going to have to exit in front of the C-Store and out onto Wellington very close to the intersection. Right now they have the capability of going through the shopping center and exiting farther away from the intersection, which is always safer. This is that same day with the traffic cones. We wanted to just take a real short video and show you how the truck has to maneuver through here. And just to get to the... So, you can see he's threading his way through those traffic cones with a car on the left-hand side. He bumps a few of them. He's able to make it through, but I think the point of this is it's very, very tight. And this is an experienced driver. Stevie Step was on site. He knows this guy. and this was just having to go through it one time with a mid-sized car there are a lot of different variables that could create the potential for an accident a new driver or a larger vehicle that's maybe parked too far away from the pump and just going through this maneuver over and over and over again a thousand times accessing the site over and over again you know But sooner or later, an accident's going to happen. And you can see him backing up now. Keep in mind that if there's a curb there, he's going to be trying not to hit that curb on his right-hand side and also trying to stay away from that car. And you can just imagine what kind of an accident that's going to be. Someone pumping gas and a large truck hits him. so we feel just the the safety concerns and you can see there there's no cars in the parking spaces here thankfully but if this were full of cars it would be a different story it's just tight as a tick trying to get this truck in there access that dumpster and move out and he has to do this thousands of times the other concern again another big truck this is the um tanker truck so you can see where he parks uh in order to refill these tanks um the position of this truck is very important he's lined up these excess ports with the the manholes this is not just to try and get as close as he can this is actually a safety concern um the truck is acting as a barrier uh this would be during off hours between about midnight and 6 a.m but there's always um you know cars on a on a in a um fuel center like this so he's acting as a barrier for that when they run these hoses to the manhole uh they try to keep traffic away because if a trap if a car were to hit one of these hoses and break it it's a it's a obviously it's a dangerous situation and so anytime possible they have the trucks sit over top of them like this and this is just standard practice to keep this as safe as possible and we can look at how that relates to our traffic cones he's right on top of that island so this is i'm sitting on the next to the dumpster looking out toward clay's mill and you can see he's just he's right on top of it the traffic cone way over on the left is where that 30 foot access point begins these two traffic cones on the right hand side of the truck is 50 feet so 50 feet is the perfect size in order to not only allow traffic to move around the pumps the way that they would that the way that they want to the way that traffic wants to move around pumps in a two-directional way but also would allow this truck to sit where he needs to sit in order to keep the the fueling service as safe as possible so we're not just trying to ask for a big number 50 feet is what we feel is the most appropriate size for this site so you can see some of the special circumstances around this site that we feel deem it appropriate to have an access point bigger than 30 feet it's not unique we wouldn't be the first ones to have this there are several other sites around lexington that have access points that are larger than 30 feet. These are all on streets as well. What we're asking for is between two private properties, but this is the Shell Station in Beaumont on midnight. They have a 50-foot wide access point on midnight. This is the Speedway at the corner of Georgetown and Mercer. They have a 50-foot wide entrance on Mercer. There's two over on Winchester Road near i-75 this is on buena vista there's a shell and a thortons a shell on the left and on the right each of these are in excess of 70 feet this is a bp over on man war and maple leaf and they are more than 90 feet access point on that private street and the new costco this is six or seven years old and they have a more than 90 foot access point so what we're asking for is not something brand new and it's appropriate there there are standards for a reason we understand that and more often than not the standards are most appropriate but there are times when we have to stand back and look at the site and look at the functionality and say wait a minute this is something that's working and look at all the variables and make some engineering judgments. And we feel that in this case, 50 feet is most appropriate. Now, Adam, if you would, before we conclude, will you go back to the layout plan, the first one you indicated? Yeah. First plan. Thank you. Okay, so as Stephen said a little bit earlier, this is a forgiveness request, and here's what happened. So Stephen came in with an independent development plan, then cut a deal with Eli, who's on this call. He needed more parking. They wanted access and what have you. And so we, there's an underground detention basin underneath that shaded part of that parking lot. So we did a development plan. Yes, we had the 24-foot connector down there. Fire marshal came out when Steve was trying to get his permitting and said, you don't have enough room to get your tankers and everything around. That entrance has to be widened. And so, you know, it's not, I guess, not the way it should have happened. But in the field, there was a judgment call made to pull the curb back. The curb now is all the way up where you see the island by the dumpster. Ideally, we would like to have that curb come down and line up with the parking. Because what happens, what's not been said so far, there's a lot of traffic that comes off Wellington, comes through, gets there, goes in the store or whatever, and exits back up to the shopping center. So we need to keep that alignment to the front drive of the center. By pulling that curve all the way down, it creates a conflict point, as Adam pointed out, and almost a hairpin turn trying to make that turn back. We witnessed in the field just when we had the cones up, we were there for an hour. People were confused, didn't know what to do. So we think 50 feet is a good compromise for all the reasons we've suggested. I think this plan shows that restricting that space, not only for circulation, but for the tankers, for the garbage delivery, you name it, is just too tight. It just does not function. So this is an unusual situation. As Adam pointed out, it's private property, adjoining private property. It's no different than you see gas stations adjacent to shopping center parking lots all over the country. Anytime you get off an interchange and get gas, you're going to see that situation in many, many locations all over the place. so we would ask for the 50 foot connection as opposed to the 30. 30 just is not going to work. Okay. I want a second. Thank you. We do have a question from Mr. Penn to the applicant. Brian, why was the dumpster move? Pardon me. Why was the dumpster moved down there closer to the C-Store, and that creates a conflict that if you left it where it was on the original plan, it wouldn't have been? You'll have to ask. Stevie stepped that. I don't know. Frank, do you know Eli of any chance? I have no idea why that was moved. that would eliminate one of your conflicts there if the dumpster wasn't located, wasn't moved off the original plant. Yeah. Now I will say in retrospect, and again, that's a fair question. I don't know the answer, but the grades now would not allow that dumpster to be anywhere else in fact because there's a severe drop back there and there's an exit door and all kinds of stuff. I would like to say that we spent a lot of money to do the underground detention to make that site much more usable. It was a really, really tight site to work off of, and it was a speedway for a couple decades, and the traffic pileup was horrible getting on and off. And so I think we've done the right things to make the mobility of the center much better. And, you know, as well as we spent a lot of money to improve the general site as well. And I think it functions well. Is it perfect? No. But the grade is really challenging on that site. Thank you. Thank you. Commission members, further questions for the applicant? Okay, I'll move on. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. Not seeing any. So we're bringing back to the commission for further discussion on this particular agenda item. Mr. Nickel. yes did we um i lost video for a second did we hear the rebuttal from the um staff or from parking at least not yet okay not yet staff i was gonna speak um when this uh the c store came in originally there was no connectivity so it was designed and laid out so that they could have the circulation and it met the requirements for the circulation for the gas tanks and for the dumpsters. Mr. Parker's here and he can confirm that but it met all that requirement. Like I said the building permit that was pulled for this was when there was no connection. So they didn't have that in their design at all at the time of the building of that C-Store. It was once the adjacent property owner started making that connectivity that they decided to connect on to it. They have a development plan that's approved but not signed so their development is not in line with the approved development plan that we have on record right now. The development plan to have this connection is not signed it is expired so they are against the development plan. In violation of the law. Yeah. Yeah okay. The original plan was heavily scrutinized when the gas station came in. the engineering firm that designed and laid out the C-Store provided tracking of both a fuel truck and a garbage truck. Otherwise the plan would not have been approved. That's part of my review. That's part of all the engineers review is to make sure that we have proper circulation and that the engineer that designed it, certifies that it would work. I don't know whose vehicle that was sitting there. I don't know whether it was constructed incorrectly and those pumps were moved closer, but I can tell you it was not constructed to the plans that were reviewed and that were approved and that were even submitted by the design engineer for the C-Store. So that's item number one. As far as proper placement of the gas fuel manholes for the tanker truck, I don't know why it was placed the way it was because as Cheryl alluded to, the original plan was not followed. So I can't tell you if it was oriented differently. And yes, because of the way they built it, their opinion is it doesn't work. If it had been built according to the original plan, perhaps it would work. But we don't know that. The applicant submitted on April 16th a 36-foot wide opening and said it would work. and now we're back up to a 50. I was trying to compromise. I've offered three solutions that I felt were reasonable and would accommodate the circulation patterns, especially based on the original design from a stamped plan from another engineering firm. I can't stress that enough. We have a professional engineer who has submitted a plan that is certified that that plan will work when built according to his original plan. So that's a very, very important thing in this whole discussion. As far as Georgetown and Mercer and other gas stations, I could take you all around town and show you sites that were, or at the time was not properly reviewed or designed, or our criteria changes. If we don't learn from our mistakes in the past of circulation, we're not going to move forward. I find it interesting that the presentation did not include a site at the Kroger's on Regency Road that this designer was required to meet our new requirements of providing safe circulation in gas stations. At the Regency Kroger's, we currently have an 86-foot wide opening. Because of improvements to a retention basin along Nicosville Road and a pharmacy addition, that development plan was required to narrow those entrances down to 30 feet in order to enhance the safety of the gas station circulation in that area. So we reduced, we do have a track record. that we have narrowed it down from 86 down to 30 feet on one side of 24. We're consistent. This is nothing that is singling out this location or anything. We're asking to either follow the plan or follow our guidelines that have been established. The 30 feet is acceptable, and we feel that that's a willing and easy compromise. So finally, as far as the fire marshal, I will let Captain Lingle, if he's on here, address that. He and I have spoke numerous times about fire marshal requirements and whom visited the site. And maybe Captain Lingle can provide some guidance there. As far as a grade issue, I'd like to remind this was a basin that was filled in. And so there was some grade issues, but again, the original plan, had it been followed, the grade issue would not be a problem. Additionally, the engineer, another engineer who's designed the stonewall site and put the original 24-foot access point also was addressing and able to certify that the grade issues would not be an issue with the 24-foot access. So those are issues that I think are part of the discussion. But again, what we're asking for is to follow the original plan that was submitted to us and we reviewed. If you have any other questions, I'd be glad to answer those. Mr. Nickel, do you want to ask your question or do you want to wait on fire? uh i'll just had a quick question to clarify the fact that the original development plan had no access to the parking lot is that correct that's correct and then 50 feet was created um without a development plan and you were it was close to 70 it's right right now the existing condition is, I think it's 68 feet, eight inches. Okay. And you say, all right, I understand you made a mistake. I'll give you a 30 feet. Is that the gist of this argument on your side? That was, we would allow the 24 foot that was shown on the adjacent properties development plan. And, you know, they need to certify their plan and show that 24 foot access. The location of that was the initial point of discussion. So they wanted to line up closer to the building to line up with across the drive aisle, across the front of the building. I was okay with that. Build that at 24 feet. We'll move it up along the property line. That was unacceptable. And then they came back with a 36-foot wide opening again on April 16th. And I said, I'll compromise with you between the 24 and the 36. We'll do a 30 and we'll move on from this. That was unacceptable. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Fire. Captain. Yes, sir. In the previous meetings, I heard the comment that the fire marshal came out and said they could widen it. I never got a name of who the applicant spoke to or the contractor. I followed up with our fire marshal. He didn't have any knowledge of it. I followed up with our fire inspectors and no one in that capacity had knowledge of this conversation. I'm not sure who the person was that they spoke with, but it was nobody to my knowledge out of the fire marshal's office from what was related to me by them. Thank you for that information. Do you have a recommendation, Captain? To follow traffic engineering's guidelines. Thank you. Can I, do we get a chance to kind of? Yes. Yes, Mr. Hill, I'm going to come back to you. Yes, I will. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions for staff, commission members? All right, Mr. Polk. I'm confused. It sounds to me like the applicant made a mistake, made several mistakes, changed what was built from what was proved. but we now have a situation that needs to be remedied. So it looked like from the applicant's presentation that the width of this opening is problematic if it's too narrow. I would like to understand if what's being proposed by city engineering is to completely rebuild everything and go back to the approved plan, which would mean changing where the manholes are for the fuel and so on and so forth. If not, I'd like to understand the argument for restricting that opening and how that is safer than what the applicant is asking for. It just doesn't seem clear to me. so the applicant said it was safer to direct your traffic when you can roll when you can run five or six cars side by side in several different directions in an opening you're not channelizing your traffic so it's it's very similar to painted lines. There's reasons that we put lane lines on ropes. It channelizes and defines the space that the driver is supposed to traverse. With a 70-foot opening or a 50-foot opening, that's not happening. I can't stress enough, the engineer previously showed plans and We had discussions about timelines of trucks because we had concerns when the plan first came in. We had concerns about how will the fuel trucks get here, how will the garbage trucks get here, and when will they be coming out. Those were all addressed as part of our review. so i don't know if that answers the question uh but um it's kind of like imagine a a toll booth um you know it's it's a raceway out of the toll booth when you funnel from from 10 lanes down to two uh that's what you're doing in this situation you're you're you're forcing cars from 50-foot wide opening down to a 24-foot opening in front of their store. They already have, keep in mind, they already have 24- to 30-foot wide openings on their lot between the pumps in the store, between the pumps and Clay's Mill Road landscaping. So we've already got a defined drive space. It's how you direct vehicles to that space is the important part. And we're taking 50 feet and funneling them down to a 24-foot wide space on either side of gas pumps. I don't think that's safe. And it is definitely not consistent with the reviews that we've had on some development plans that have recently come in. We are, traffic engineering has been asked to heavily review signage and payment markings and drive out wits by the police department. And I'll use this as an example. 2018, I received a call from a police officer, and we all know how long Fayette Mall has been built. He had an accident that occurred in the parking lot of Fayette Mall. It was an attorney in one vehicle, and he questioned the police officer's judgment on who was at fault. The lawyer said, based on what's out here in the parking lot, how can you tell me I had to stop? That's when traffic engineering started. We were tasked with, you need to do a better review and start defining where people stop. So now we have stop bars in parking lots. I can show you all over town where we don't, but if you look at new development plans and new construction plans that we have been reviewing, you will see new pavement markings, new signage that's required. Gas stations, we're narrowing and defining the spaces that vehicles can traverse and occupy, trying to make sure that these parking lots are safer for pedestrians and motorists alike. seeing any other questions at the moment so i'm gonna bring it back to the applicant for the okay i'm gonna follow up with with graham's question because i'm confused as well just watching looking at the presentation um and and struggling with you know uh well the presentation as it was um and you know suggesting that that's and i'm i'm trying to understand that that's that it's safer um not well to go to go like the way the cones were set so you know i'm i'm struggling with understanding a solution um the solution personally so I just put that out there. Thank you, Mr. Bell. I think that's why the subdivision committee referred it to us. Adam, can you all share with Adam again? And Adam, can you pull up that way? Ms. Meyer, I didn't see your hand. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. That's all right. I'm wondering, For me, it would be helpful if we could have that rendering, the overhead. Right. And if traffic, if Stephen Parker could please show us on that where he's proposing that the, you know, the opening, where, you know, how to extend that opening, where it would be on that rendering. I'm happy to chime in here and I can answer that question. I don't know that it's an appropriate question for you to answer when she asks Steve Parker. I don't think this I just want I just like to see where that line is on this drawing Mr. Hill if you can utilize your cursor and Mr. Parker can you direct Mr. Hill I think that would be appropriate if we can't do that then we got a bigger problem Adam point to the 30 feet right there and point to the tick mark on the 30 feet. Right there. That's the width that Stephen is suggesting. It was 24 before he's agreeable to 30. Here's what's whenever you're all ready, I want to try to make some points here. Just real quick. No, what was proposed or what was allowable was no cut at all. I think that needs to be clarified. No, there's confusion all across the board here on that. The certified development plan for the gas station is what they should have built off of and that shows no access. No shared access. So then how did we get here? I thought you said though, Cheryl, it just hadn't been certified. They got another plan approved for taking down a lot of trees and they needed the urban forester to sign off on their tree removal. So they got another plan approved and it never got certified. And that one showed a shared access point. And then Mr. Maxney and CMW moved forward with a shared access point based on that. But that plan was never certified. Right. We have to go by what was certified. These conditions were met, which showed no access. Obviously, shared access is better. Right? We want there to be shared access, but it needs to be mutually beneficial, not just to the property owners, but to the public in general. It needs to be safe. So your question today is, how do we get a safe access, shared access point? Right. And I think the best case is to follow the recommendation from the engineers that the city hires. But here's the problem. You all are sitting right there looking at that 30-foot dimension. You're looking at it. When you have vehicles coming in off Placemill Road trying to get to the gas station going around a car, it's tight. You saw what was going on with the semi and the garbage truck. But here's the bigger issue. People coming off Wellington or coming through the shopping center trying to get to the front of the C store have to hairpin around that island. We witnessed it out there, and people were confused to know what to do. It's not wide enough to get two cars through there. Steve, you talked a while ago about going from 50 feet to 24 feet. But the beauty of the way it works now is you come through Wellington. If you want to go back to the shopping center and exit out Wellington or go on to another part of the shopping center or access the C-Store from the shopping center, you come down the new driveway that was created that extends from the drive in front of the shopping center. You pull right into the gas station. If you want to leave, you pull right out. By pulling that down to 30 feet, these cars have to come and do a hairpin turn all the way back around and can't do it. Literally can't do it. We have to keep the alignment. The drive, the parallel to Clayson Road goes down to the entrance, right? We have to keep that. So we've got to keep that alignment. Here's what happened. Here's what's being missed. and I can't speak for CV Stephanie why that plan never got certified and I didn't even know that until a couple weeks ago or whatever but they came in originally with their development plan for whatever reason they made a determination they needed more room to maneuver they needed more parking they negotiated an understanding with Eli Masney again who's on the call that they would pay for a large percentage of putting that detention underground, doing more parking. They've got a cross easement with them. And for whatever reason, I can't, I'm not going to try to defend them. But things just didn't gel as a connection. It wasn't like this connection point got made and nobody ever knew about it. It was on our development plan. We thought it was on their development plan. Sounds like it was. It just didn't get certified. But the 24 feet, sometimes things on paper just don't work in the field. And it just, truthfully, all the things weren't considered it. It doesn't work. This has been open for approximately a year and a half. There's not been one fender bender, one accident we understand out there. I promise you, if that has to come all the way down, there's going to be something going on at that little intersection coming off Clay's Mill Road trying to get in and out and trying to negotiate and get out of this place. So this is one of those, you saw the cones, you saw the videos. It just does not make sense. I know what we're saying about standard. Yeah, we did regency. It's all about alignment. When you have horizontal alignments where things line up, you can get down to 24 feet or 30 feet. When you've got a convoluted intersection with things going in different directions, sometimes you have to bend the rules a little bit and that's what we're asking. Mr. Poe? Just to muddy the waters. Thank you, Grant. Can we come back to the group? Please drop the whatever. Thank you. Yes, sir. Well, yeah, I might need that to get an explanation to my question. Fair enough. Yes. Was a 30-foot opening ever considered to the north of where it's being shown in that plan? Well, I'll show you the problem with that. We got to see the plant. The problem with that is now you don't have the alignment. We need to zoom out and see the whole center, but you don't have the alignment with the parking bay that parallels Clay's Mill Road. So you're coming down. You can't get back up to it in a reasonable fashion. The other thing, and this is the bigger thing, Graham, If you extend the nose of the aisle and now up and have the 30 feet up high, the semis, the garbage trucks, just everyday traffic can't get around the pump, can't get around those cars. But then you can't access back to the parking lot, the field of parking. Because all those bays dump into the parallel access drive across the parallel Clayson Road. So we think it's really critical to keep that alignment at the bottom point of that access point. We did have one scheme where we had two, we had an island between them. We had, I believe it was a 24-foot drive up at the top, the 24 at the bottom with an island in between them as a compromise. And to be honest with you, the island would need to have been sort of a manageable curve situation. But, Stephen, you can chime in. You didn't like that idea. So we did away with that. But we had two access points with a median in between them. I would like to point out again on the plan that was submitted by the gas station, there was no access. And we looked at that as a positive because it required traffic to go back north and exit out onto Wellington. You wouldn't have to cut through traffic through the gas station. But again, I would like to remind, a permit was pulled by the gas station on a plan that was submitted to us showing no access. And as far as the 30 feet, I'm asking for 30 feet anywhere along that property line. Adam, can you pull up an overall shopping center layout? I'm mute. Okay, you can see the large field of, you can see how our parking bays come down. You can see the front is dry. We could redefine some of that and pull it up. But I'm going to say again, the trucks and the vehicles, when you pull the nose of that first turn up, they can't get around the pump of the vehicle to service the dumpster, to feasibly get into the center. This is a situation where it's working well now in the field. And I totally understand rules and regulations and standards. I do. I have to deal with it every day. But it's working now. It's 70 feet or whatever it is. We're trying to compromise at 50. To squeeze it to 30 is just going to be a disaster. Ms. Boxdale, then Mr. Nichols. Okay, I have a question. I guess I'm not understanding. In seeing the video that was shown with how the trucks were over that boundary, when the original plan called for a no entry point, how were the trucks to get in and out? I can't see where they would have been able to get in and out. The applicant that designed it said the trucks would enter from Clay's Mill and exit via Wellington. So why wasn't that too tight then? Because it seems like it is. I mean, you know, to come in and you're basically coming, you know, really close to that first bay there. How do you maneuver if you didn't have that extra space? I don't see how that happens. Again, I can refer to the development plan that was submitted to us and tell you that it was not built according to that plan. including some of the landscaping hot ones. So given where it is today, how would that work if you did cut that in that opening down? How would the trucks maneuver? Well if you look at the video, the cones are lined up with the wall of the dumpster. The property line is further away than that. So there's more space between the property line and the dumpster wall. Yeah, but what necessitated that was to get the new, Stephen, to get the new dimensioning down the parking lot. and to terminate the curve so that we meet the dimensioning you want and have a five-foot landscape island that's kind of where it's landing i'm not saying a foot or two maybe but that's about all that that's left down there it might be able we could offset that a foot or so um i think it's important to know that on interstate highway we have 15 foot lanes and it was referred to having 15 feet of distance. I think, I don't believe even the original plan showed a five-foot landscaping area there. There are much more smaller landscaping areas than five feet, but I think there is a workable solution to having a 30-foot wide opening if desired. Mr. New. My question was what Ms. Sparksdale said as well. I mean, it was approved without an opening. If they're going to put an opening, the bigger one looks better, but this seems like a reasonable compromise when looking at the public safety aspect of this because the decision could be made easily. It says you cannot have any access at all. I want to be accommodating and practical. Practicality is the most important thing. And, you know, I believe in developing good product in Lexington. But we've got our staff who we trust adamantly against this. I mean, why can't you just take what you got? Well, let me ask you this, Stephen. Would you would you back to if we had 30 feet? at the nose down there and we had an island, a separation island, and then we aligned we aligned the drive in front of the sea storm. Mr. Hill, we can't allow you to negotiate right now. Absolutely, that should have been done previously. yeah sorry no it's not no we just you know unfortunately we can't allow it at the moment so we need to kind of move forward here now we've got several discussions a lot of discussions I think it's definitely something that we need to figure this out some form or fashion Mr. Nickel had great point Ms. Barstow Mr. Pohl, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Dell, Mr. Penn. What I'd like to do is close this piece out and bring it back to the commission for further discussion only. Okay, Mr. Penn. I don't think it's been mentioned here that one of the driving forces here was parking spaces and on the original plan and then when they get in the field and they decide they're going to open that up there never was a business that didn't want more parking spaces when you've got that kind of action going on so it's hard it's hard being justified two or three wrongs making a right and I really struggle with that because in my experience in life, the more wrong decisions you make don't necessarily turn into right. And so, you know, the planning, the subdivision committee had this same kind of discussion and we couldn't come to an agreement of how to recommend it going forward. So we, what you don't like to do, you bring it forward as a referral and then you get into the same thing we got into today. you're trying to negotiate on the fly and there's no good answer here I don't worry reward bad behavior so I think the best thing to do here just my personal opinion is is to go with the 30 feet and if they don't like it they can come back and build a development plan but they've already built it that's the problem and it's not a certified plan there's nothing that's right here and yet we're trying to make it right and i don't think there is a right thank you mr pen mr nickle i mean i second that motion personally one thing that's just frustrating is we spend an hour and a half doing this and talking about this and then all of a sudden we are negotiating this is a total waste of my time and your time and all of our time. We can't have this stuff come up like this and spend an hour talking about, I mean, talking about what we're talking about. So there's my frustration. Thank you, Mr. Nibble. Ms. Blumley? Thank you, Bruce, because the applicant did not adhere to the original development plan, period. We have staff making a recommendation. And I think that is a policy. And we've discussed this for a large amount of time here. And I don't think we've really reached a good resolution, because I don't think there is a good resolution to this. We have a wrong, and we have a way that The staff is recommending to correct it, and that would be what I would like to see happen. And I don't know what kind of motion you want. Do we need findings from legal? No. No? Okay. Because I'm ready to move this on. The floor is open for a motion unless we have further discussion. Not seeing any. Ms. Plumlee? Okay. Regarding PLN MJDP 2079 Stonewall Shopping Center, I recommend we support staff with a 30-foot opening. Okay. We have a motion. I have a second by Mr. Nickel. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, so next up, we should be on page 7, agenda item G, PLNMJDP-21-22. Yeah, sorry, I was trying to... Okay, we're at Belmont Farm Unit 7 Coventry. Okay, this property is located off the north side of town. We have Georgetown Road out here, Citation Boulevard. This is Remington Way. This is Huntley Place. We have just been, just recently in the last couple months, we were looking at some single family homes up here on Huntley. Now they're coming down here to this location. They're coming in wanting to put in 245 dwelling units, apartment dwelling units in this area. We have revised conditions for this plan. Part of what revisions were, we had a discussion question to discuss proposed density. So the staff worked with the applicant and we talked about some revisions to the layout of the plan. And this is a revised plan, so we have revised conditions. They were able to change some of the apartment layouts, bring the buildings up closer to Huntley Place, had the main access drawn off of Remington to come into a central location for the clubhouse and pool. We have our typical sign-off conditions. We just had a couple cleanup conditions left. We like to have all our buildings dimensioned. So we'd like to see maintenance building dimension, possibly proposed renderings of the residential buildings. Denote that the property is located within the Royal Springs Aquifer Recharge. We would like to have a note on the plan stating that this has been reviewed by the World Springs committee and if there are any other comments or questions we want that noted on the plan. Our last condition was to they have a maintenance building that's located right down here in the corner near the intersection. We were wondering if that maintenance building could be possibly relocated so it's not at the corner. If not possibly some additional screening to be going around the maintenance building per article 18.3 of the zoning ordinance. With that, I can open it to the committee to see if there's any comments, questions. Any questions from the committee? I'm not seeing any. Oh, Mr. Nichols. Sorry, is the staff recommendation still postponement on this? Oh, we have to revise. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Okay. Got you. Thank you. I'm at my wrong computer. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Alrighty. Uh, I see any, thank you, staff applicant. Great. Good afternoon. Um, so just to address a couple of those, uh, conditions that are still on the revised report. We have reached out and sent this plan to the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee, and once we hear back from them and receive any comments from them, we'll make sure we get that note updated on the plans. And the maintenance building, we'll look at the plan to see if we can't possibly move it or, if not, provide the adequate screening that will be required on that. Otherwise, we're in agreement with all the provides conditions and just ask for your approval. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the African? Not seeing any. Do we have anyone out in Zoom? Any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? Please do so by raising your hand. Not seeing any. All right. Bring it back to the commission. Close this section out and the floor is open for a motion. All discussion. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move approval of appeal in MJDP 2122, Belmont Farm, Unit 7, with the now 14 conditions, as recommended by staff. 15. 15. Uh-huh. Okay. Okay, 15. We have a motion. That was seconded by Mr. DeMovilland. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all. So next up, page eight. This is the one we pulled from the consent agenda. If I'm not mistaken, PLN, MJDP-21-24. we do have a expansionary master plan compliance report with this as well. Staff? Okay, this one. There we go. My computer wasn't cooperating with me. And that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Members of the commission, we are on the top of page eight. It is a major development, land 21-24, the Blackford Property Apartments amended, and the Secure Justice Glen Eagles Unit 1E. Now, this is a proposal, in essence, for an extension in this area of the multifamily units and development that you see in this area. And I know you all remember this well. We have Manowar in this location. Polo Club is down here. Comes out in this way. As you all recall, there was much discussion when this came through with EAR 2 and 3 zones in order to get the density that the applicant requested in this development. They utilized density transfer under your Article 23 of your ordinance for the expansion area. This is the little CC area that fronts on Manowar. And again, the greenway area, large dominant feature, as well as it's a floodplain and drainage through here. And in this area, it's a greenway as well and a drainage feature and floodplain that impacts the property. This particular area, again, is being incorporated into this plan. It's amending this plan to add 106 additional apartment units with the associated parking that you can see in this location. Now, they propose to extend Haversham Lane as a public street, terminating with a cul-de-sac. An interesting situation as well is they're proposing five single-family lots that you can see here in this location. now again access off of Caversham will be into the main central area of the development as you can see at this location these apartments and their parking will be accessed at this location and this is a revised plan that actually reduced the access points on the proposed extension of Caversham, which is certainly an improvement. As you are well aware, these single-family homes will all require driveway access to Caversham, which will be a public street. Now, again, as I've stated, this is an extension of the similar buildings that have been approved in this area, and in essence is an expansion of that multifamily development. You can see that we have standard conditions on your report. We do have a few things that they have actually addressed. One was resolving the density. That's in compliance with Article 23, and this revised plan has done so. They had to include this green space area into the plan because, interesting enough, again, we haven't used a lot of density transfer. We used a little bit once before across the road in Hamburg East. They utilize density transfer for this development and they're utilizing clustering, another tool in the expansion area to help to get the number of units and the build. that they desire in this particular location. And you all may recall, this is the old KU property. That's what this was. KU owned this for many years and at one time anticipated a substation at this location. Now, there is some landscaping that's required between this single family home and this apartment building. Again, that's an Article 23 requirement. there should be room for them to provide adequate landscaping between the single family home and this apartment as well. Now, there is an EMP report. What we prepared for you and should be in the Google Drive is just a memo because this plan is in essence an extension of your previously approved plan, which did comply with the expansion area master plan. As you all have been told, the required infrastructure elements have been constructed. We've got regional basins constructed. We have a sewage treatment or pump station located off Winchester Road. The trunk lines have been built. And of course, Polo Club Boulevard itself is a required infrastructure element. So they are all, in essence, in place, of course. They're built. So there's compliance. In addition, as this plan came through, you may recall our discussions here and as well as here, it comes into a community design element. They have a well-defined pedestrian system throughout this entire development. They've extended it here. This pedestrian system does connect to the right-of-way and the pedestrian system sidewalks that exist along the public right-of-way and the streets in this area of our community. You may recall, again, the pedestrian access here since this street will not be extended into the development. So they are emphasizing and utilizing the natural features of the site. So the staff does agree that this extension of this plan, in essence, does comply with your expansion area master plan. And I'll just add that these additional units will bring the total in this area to 430 dwelling units. So with that, staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you, John. Any questions for staff? Okay. Advocate? I will. Got it. Good afternoon again. Nick Nicholson and Rory Kaley here on behalf of Ball Homes. We are in complete agreement with the staff's conditions. This property has been zoned EAR2 for decades at this point and was rated as EAR2 in the expansionary future land use map. I won't go into kind of my normal arguments regarding the comprehensive plans that we need to develop these types of vacant and underutilized tracts of land, especially when what we are proposing is a principal permitted use in the very zone with which has governed this property since before many of the surrounding homes were built. We have not changed anything on the area that was previously approved as a final development plan which we could build starting today. And as you remember the access point that we are showing on to Barrington was approved on the previous plan as an access easement. This was preferred by the surrounding neighborhoods versus using Constantine that was kind of dead-ended into this property, but would have required the crossing of a heavily treed greenway. And so when we talked to KU about basically establishing this access easement out to Barrington, they indicated that they would rather sell this property. And basically that allowed us to show the natural completion of the approved apartment site that's in front of you all today. It also allowed us to, as Tom said, to continue Caversham as a local street instead of as an access easement, which certainly is encouraged by our subdivision regulations. We flanked the existing single-family homes that are adjacent to the expanded site with single-family lots to ensure that it was like-on-like for all the existing homeowners. It also ensures that we weren't basically backing up multifamily buildings directly next to people that have owned those homes for several years. It ensures that the purchasers of the new single-family lots are very well aware of the fact that they are going to have a neighbor that are the multifamily structures. It also helps incorporate a multifamily complex into the adjacent neighborhood as encouraged by our comprehensive plan. And as Tom said, we are going to be adding enhanced buffering along in between this multifamily and the single family lots that we are proposing in order to make sure that, you know, that that is adequate screenage. We met with both the Blackford HOA and the Glen Eagles HOA. Neither expressed objections to this plan. In fact, both indicated that they assumed that this phase would be coming once that first plan got approved. I do want to bring up one thing that Glen Eagles HOA did express a concern about, and that is parking on Polo Club Boulevard. Basically, right now, when you hit Barrington and Polo Club, where there's single-family houses right next door, there's restricted parking in that area. That parking restriction stops at the KU frontage, and it kind of basically tapers off of a parking area as you head towards the CC and part of the KU frontage is restricted parking. We would, you know, more than encourage traffic engineering to go ahead and restrict our entire frontage. We're happy and we agree with the HOA that there isn't a need to have parking on Polo Club Boulevard in this location. There's a bike lane right here as well. It just, we just don't need that type of kind of conflict points on Polo Club, especially when both sides of this site are already restricted. And so we're happy to work with traffic engineering to see if they're going to be willing to go ahead and kind of extend that restricted parking. With that, you know, I'm happy to answer any questions, but we are in complete agreement with the staff's conditions and we request that you approve this amendment subject to those conditions. Thank you, Nick. Any questions for the applicant. I'm not seeing any. I do recall we had a citizen that would like to speak on this particular agenda item. I think Ms. Combs. Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you. I would like to say we should turn this thing into a park for the neighborhood and for the people. This should the HOA can say whatever they want but what do the people of Glen Eagles want of this neighborhood you are here to serve the public so ask the public what they want that's all I have to say thank you Ms. Combs we have Mike Andrew hello this is Lila Andrews Mike's wife sorry we're both here Yeah, we have concerns. We do live on Barrington and the traffic is already horrible. When I'm backing out of my driveway, I have to wait for at least two, three, four, five cars before I can even get out. So my concerns are if this goes in, how is our traffic going to be? I know Cabrisham is going to be used, but most people use Barrington to get around where they need to here. Thank you for your concern. We have staff. Tom, do you mind addressing that for us? Yes, sir. As you all well know, development generates traffic. This development, it was not determined that a traffic study was necessary because it's not going to generate enough additional traffic that should have a service impact on the existing transportation infrastructure. Thank you, John. Do you have anyone else that would like to speak on this particular agenda? I'm not seeing any, so I'm bringing it back to the commission for further discussion and or a motion. Thank you. Mr. Bell. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNM MJDP 2124 Blackford Properties Apartments. with the 16 conditions as stated and recommended by staff. Yes. And Mr. Bill, are you including the expansionary master plan compliance report? Yes, please. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Mr. Nickel? seconded the motion any further discussion not seeing any all in favor please raise your hand motion passes unanimously thank you thank you all thank you uh next up should be on page eight tom you're up again i'm up again sir All right. P.O.L.N. P.O.L.N. MJDP. By the way, Nick is at the Brown. And if those of you who are attending today have never had the opportunity to have a hot brown at the Brown, I recommend that you do so. It's just kind of a fun thing to do. I will take you up on that advice, Tom. Thank you very much. Yeah, you will enjoy it. Well, you're going to have a whistle, Tom. All right. All right. I've done something wrong. Keep going. There we go. Here we are. All right. So we are in the expansion area still. We are down in the area of Deerhaven, which is in this location. And Polo Club. Thank you. Way over here. I suddenly drew a blank. We are in the new market development up in the corner of the new market development. Again, the easiest reference is Deer Haven Lane in this location. There is a park that's Lexington Fayette Urban County Park in this area. And of course, just above here and extending it this way into the rest of the bordering, the new market development is the Brighton Trail, the Rails to Trail, a very popular amenity for our community in this location. This, in essence, is a continuation. It is Unit 11 of the Newmarket development. It is 107 building lots that you can see in this location, along with a continuation of the established street pattern from the previous units in Newmarket. This is a large greenway area. It is a part of the stormwater management system that exists out here within the expansion area and within Newmarket. This, as you all probably are aware, is the 200-foot setback that is required off of the rural scenic road, which is Deerhaven. Deerhaven is one of several that, again, you all are aware, received that designation under the expansion area master plan. And the whole intent of all this is to try to maintain the rural aspect of that particular road. Now, again, this is a continuation of the previous units with single family homes. It's EAR2. It is very consistent with the previous existing development pattern. Now, you can see on your agenda that we have very standard sign-off conditions for a development plan, preliminary subdivision plan. As you all, again, are aware, in the expansion area, those are generally combined. Again, the purpose being to build the infrastructure necessary for the residential development is why those plans are combined. We have standard sign-offs, including the finding necessary by this body that it complies with the AMP. We have one resolution easement. This plan has addressed our concerns with the width of the easement in this area along the park. They had initially proposed a 15-foot easement in this area, which does not work and did not work on the previous section of the new market development, where we discussed and worked out and have a larger utility easement along the rear of all these properties. Buttermilk continues out here and intersects with the boulevard. And there is a large easement, a 30-foot easement in this area. And that's extremely important because not only will it accommodate necessary utilities, but one aspect of the new market development when it was originally brought in, when all 300 acres were brought in, was an attempt to protect tree stands. There are a lot of trees in this particular area of this property of Newmarket. And so over as it's developed over time, there's been attempts to make sure we try to protect those tree stands. And what remains principally not unusual is an old property line tree stand in this area. So that easement really very much helps not only screen these homes, but also to protect the tree stand in this area, which, of course, as I said, is adjacent to the park. There is a discussion item. This plan has discussed aspects of that discussion item, and that was pedestrian access. now to the park particularly. There is pedestrian access a little bit further back down Buttermilk into the park, and there's also access to the trail within this development. Access to the trail is also available off Deerhaven. That trail transects completely this park area. It goes completely through that park, and again, there was some concern about just enhancing that aspect and access to the park. And subsequently, people can also access the trail from the park. They are proposing 30 feet in this location. In addition, they are providing a 30-foot access into this greenway. This is a required open space. So this is, in essence, permanent green space, which obviously can be utilized for passive recreation and that sort of thing. So again, they have addressed those concerns in providing that access. Now, they're still showing a 15-foot utility easement along this particular boundary. That may be adequate, and I think we can resolve that with the applicant. When the final record plats come in, utility companies, as well as engineering and other entities will take a hard look at the size of this easement and determine whether or not it is adequate. 15 feet, kind of an interesting dimension. We don't see that often. We see an awful lot, as you all no doubt know by now with all the plans you've seen, we see a lot of 20-foot easements. We see a lot of those. And again, this one is 30 feet. And the advantage there, again, is that respects that tree line and that canopy located along this northern edge. Now, in regards to your EMP report, which should be in your Google Drive, this is, as I stated, an extension of the new market development. Single-family homes are the primary form of development we've had out there. This EAR2 is consistent with that land use element. Their density is only 3.11 units. They can have anywhere up to six units per acre, but they are in this particular section of the development, which is 34 acres out of that total 300, they have a density of just over three units per acre. The infrastructure element is similar to what I described to you on the Blackford property in that the infrastructure elements are in place. The required infrastructure has been constructed in this area to serve this development. So again, they have regional stormwater, as you know, of which this is a part of it. The community design element, this again is consistent with the local street layout that exists in Newmarket and continues into this section of New Market. There is a sidewalk pedestrian system that connects and interconnects and allows access out to the boulevard and other areas. They have enhanced that in a positive manner by providing this access into this greenway, as well as additional access into the park. This is a well-defined neighborhood. The Deerhaven relationship and the greenway, This stormwater facility, the park, these are all very strong defining features which create a sense of neighborhood and literally physically define it. And that's a community design element of your AMP, which your staff believes that this plan meets. As I stated, it's basically a continuation of the overall new market plan. Now, there are some concerns about the adequacy of a 30-foot access into the park. It's a, to a certain degree, a visual concern that staff wants to continue to work to resolve that particular access and make it the best access it can be for pedestrians and for the residents in this neighborhood. So with that, I would add that under condition 14, we believe that where it says discuss, that you can, if you are happy with the discussion, make that a resolve condition. But with that, staff does recommend, as your subdivision committee did, approval of this plan. And staff recommends that you do make a finding that it complies with the EAMP. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Ms. Blumley? Thank you. Tom, the 30-foot access to the greenway and access to the park, the homeowners will be expected to maintain that. Is that correct? They are labeled as HOA Lodge. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any additional questions for staff? Applicant? Hello there. I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of the applicant. I get the honor today of being here with Rory and the fish here. So this is my first time with the fish on camera. We appreciate the staff, Mr. Martin's report. We have revised the plan since the subdivision committee met last week to deal with items 13 and 14. So we're agreeable with the staff report. And we hope you'll also approve the infrastructure and expansion area master plan reports as well. Thank you. We have any questions for the applicant. All righty, Mr. Penn. Mr. Murphy, I'm sure glad you got the opportunity to be in the fishing house with Rory. You know, sometimes he chooses to use that setting, sometimes he doesn't. My question to you is kind of a general question. Looks to me like this was a great opportunity if you ever wanted to do a single loaded street and face a park or face a setback. I know that's not the development plan, but at some time in our future, we need to look for ways where we can, instead of backing up the green space, we face it. And I think that's a challenge not only for us, but for the development community, too, because I've always wondered when you know you've got green space that's not going to be developed, why you want to turn your back on it. That's just an observation. I hear what you're saying. the we're continuing this the way this has been developed in the other adjacent units and also as we've talked about before there is really no visibility from Deerhaven Lane up past the 200 foot setback there's a tree lying along both Deerhaven Lane and then there's another tree line along in the 200-foot setback area. But I hear what you're saying. Sometimes trees can be thinned out and moved and taken down. It's just a great opportunity for somebody to buy a lot that faces green space. I think that we're missing that in our community. Thank you. any additional questions for the applicant? We'll move over to the citizens. If we have anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item, please do so by raising your hand. Seeing any. Bringing back to the commission for additional questions or discussion or a motion. and we will need a motion if that's taken for the findings for the ea mp mr nickel if there is not going to be a discussion and looking through our faces here i don't think there's going to be. I would like to recommend approval of PLN MJDP 21-00025 New Market Property Phase 1 Unit 11. Change with the findings from staff, but changing finding 14 from discussed to resolve and also adding the finding that this is in compliance with the EAMP. Thank you, Mr. Nickel. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Polk. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Kaylee. That should put us on page nine, commission items. Item A1, SRA 2021-2. All right. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, you should have a staff report in your Google Drive. This is a land subdivision regulation amendment that was initiated by you, the Urban Planning Commission, at the request of the Divisions of Environmental Services, Traffic and Traffic Engineering. This is an amendment to Article 610 of the land subdivision regulations addressing the location of street trees near intersections. This has been an interesting situation over the years, is trying to maintain safety at our intersections. And a lot of things happen at our intersections. You get utilities, you get traffic devices, and you get street trees because they are required street trees along the frontages. So at times, it creates visual problems at our intersections. In addition, in the field, there have been times where where to measure has proven problematic and where to place these trees. And so through kind of trial and error and practice over the years, our divisions of environmental services and traffic engineering have determined that instead of the 50 feet that is currently specifically stated in your land subdivision regulations, that they go to 75 feet. Now, I want to stress, does England change the number of street trees at all? They're still required the same number of street trees. They're just going to adjust their location when it's relative to an intersection and a corner lot. So it will be a specific change to 6-10B2, which is just your overall street tree section, and then 6-10C1, which is in your land subdivision regulations relative to subdivisions within the agricultural zone. Again, it's a simple change from 50 feet to 75 feet. Staff would agree with our divisions of Environmental Services and Traffic Engineering that this should enhance safety at these intersections for both the public, vehicular, pedestrian, bike, as well as for necessary public services as they have to travel these streets. So again, the purpose of this amendment is just to improve intersection safety. So staff is recommending that you approve this subdivision amendment. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? Any citizens would like to make any additional comments? Do so by raising your hand. I don't know if I'm seeing any up there. I wanted to ask, bring it back to the commission for further discussion or a motion. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move approval of SRA 2021-2 amendment to Article 6 for street tree locations near intersections with the two conditions as provided by staff. Thank you. And we have a second by Mr. DeMovillen. Any discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So, staff? I do have an item, and it's not under staff items, but it's an audience item. Our staff received an email from Mr. Fred Cote, who spoke to the Planning Commission. Is that on the... about the Imagine Lexington or Imagine Nicholasville Road corridor plan and he wanted the opportunity to submit comments to the Planning Commission. And so the staff has added his letter to the Google Drive for today's meeting under audience items. And it's a two and a half to three page letter. So when you have an opportunity, I would encourage you to read his comments, just the information that he shares. after the completion of that hearing. And I will let him know that we have passed that along to you. I think he addressed it as well to the council members and the mayor. So we'll ensure that they also get a copy of it. Great. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank you all for a good meeting again today. I wanted to bring you up to date on just a couple of things. Our buildings are opening tomorrow, Friday, June the 11th, to the public and to all of our staff. And so we expect to have all of our staff back in the offices tomorrow and going forward. And, of course, that means you all are welcome to come and visit us, and we would love to see you again. So thank you for your patience over the past year. We think everything is safe now, and we're looking forward to moving back towards ordinary. With that, I wanted to also give you an update on your meeting schedule. So next week, June 17th, is scheduled for a Planning Commission work session. We have a good agenda for you on that day, but we will continue for the moment our meetings via video teleconference, via Zoom, in part because your official hearings and meetings going forward have already been noticed for Zoom hearings. So we would need to conduct those that way anyway. So we felt like that we could have one more meeting with you in a work session in Zoom and perhaps talk about the format for the meetings going forward at next week's, next Thursday's meeting. So join us by Zoom for a work session. And probably the last item on the agenda, we'll discuss the plans for moving back to in-person meetings and perhaps a combination of in-person and virtual meetings going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right. Anyone have any questions? Any thoughts? Mr. Nichol, I'll take a motion for adjournment. a motion to adjourn all right everybody have a good weekend enjoy yourselves Thank you.