# Planning Commission Meeting Subdivision Items - September 8, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 8, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5639 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5639?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-09-08 - **Last revised**: September 8, 2022 - **Length**: 12,246 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on September 8, 2022, at 1:31 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed six agenda items during the session, all of which received approval, including development projects such as Lakeview Estates Unit 2-B, Wood Farms, Coldstream Research Campus Unit 2-B, Highwood Center Lot 2-A (Walmart), Hymson Properties Lots 7-15, and Haynes Brothers Properties LLC. The meeting involved eight motions and votes throughout the proceedings, demonstrating active deliberation on the various development proposals before the commission. Two members of the public provided comments during the public comment period, contributing community input to the planning process. ## Attendance The following members were present at the September 8, 2022 meeting: • Larry Forester • Frank Penn • Judy Worth • Robin Michler • Headley Bell • Graham Pohl • Ivy Barksdale No members were absent from the meeting. Ivy Barksdale arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eight motions, all of which passed unanimously with all six members voting in favor. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Judy Worth motioned to approve the August 11, 2022 minutes, seconded by Frank Penn. The motion passed unanimously 6-0 with votes from Larry Forester, Frank Penn, Judy Worth, Robin Michler, Headley Bell, and Graham Pohl. **Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit** [timestamp: 01:30] Frank Penn motioned to approve performance bonds and letters of credit, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. **Development Projects** Three development projects received approval with conditions: - **Sebastian Property, Unit 3-F (PLN-FRP-22-00031)** [timestamp: 05:30]: Judy Worth motioned for approval with 11 conditions and granting of a waiver to Article 4-5(b) of the Land Subdivision Regulations, seconded by Headley Bell. Passed unanimously 6-0. - **Shriners Hospital / Masonic Temple Association (PLN-MJDP-21-00055)** [timestamp: 15:30]: Frank Penn motioned for approval with 19 revised conditions, seconded by Headley Bell. Passed unanimously 6-0. - **Featheridge Park, Unit 5-A and 5-B (PLN-MJDP-22-00041)** [timestamp: 25:30]: Headley Bell motioned for approval with 19 conditions, including changes to conditions 11 and 18, seconded by Frank Penn. Passed unanimously 6-0. - **Town Branch Park (PLN-MJDP-22-00046)** [timestamp: 35:30]: Headley Bell motioned for approval with 17 conditions, seconded by Frank Penn. Passed unanimously 6-0. **Administrative Matters** Frank Penn motioned to cancel the September 29, 2022 work session [timestamp: 45:30], seconded by Judy Worth. The amendment passed unanimously 6-0. Finally, Frank Penn motioned to initiate a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to transfer enforcement functions [timestamp: 50:30]. This motion passed unanimously 6-0 without a recorded second. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the commission during the public comment period, both representing the Palomar Hills Community Association regarding the same development project. **Nathan Billings** [timestamp: 20:30] spoke on behalf of the Palomar Hills Community Association, expressing appreciation for the collaborative approach taken by the developer and city staff. Billings specifically thanked them for working with the neighborhood to address connectivity concerns and ride in/ride out issues related to the proposed development. **Sam Dunn** [timestamp: 22:30] also represented the Palomar Hills Community Association and thanked the commission for allowing neighborhood input in the development process. Dunn emphasized the critical importance of implementing the ride in/ride out solution that had been discussed between the community and the developer. Both speakers appeared supportive of the project, focusing their comments on acknowledging the cooperative efforts between the developer, city staff, and the neighborhood association to resolve transportation and access concerns. The ride in/ride out solution appeared to be a key component that addressed the community's primary concerns about the development's impact on neighborhood connectivity. ## Lakeview Estates, Unit 2-B, Block K, Lot 3 [timestamp: 02:30] The planning commission reviewed application PLN-FRP-22-00029 for an amended final record plat at Lakeview Estates, Unit 2-B, Block K, Lot 3. The proposal involves subdividing one existing lot into six separate lots and dedicating necessary easements. Traci Wade presented the application to the commission. The amended plat represents a modification to the previously approved subdivision layout for this portion of the Lakeview Estates development. The commission discussed the technical aspects of the subdivision, including lot configurations and easement dedications required for utilities and access. The proposal was evaluated against applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. Following review and discussion, the planning commission recommended approval of the amended final record plat with conditions. The specific conditions of approval were not detailed in the available materials but would typically address items such as utility connections, drainage requirements, and compliance with development standards. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the subdivision process, creating six buildable lots from the original single parcel while ensuring proper easements are established for future development and municipal services. ## Wood Farms The Planning Commission reviewed application PLN-FRP-22-00030 for Wood Farms, a plat proposal to create 3 agricultural lots from 2 existing lots [timestamp: 03:30]. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the commission. The proposal involved subdividing the current property configuration to establish three separate agricultural lots where two currently exist. Staff recommended approval of the Wood Farms plat application, contingent upon certain conditions being met. The specific conditions for approval were not detailed in the available materials, but the recommendation indicated the proposal met the necessary requirements for agricultural subdivision under the applicable zoning and development standards. The commission ultimately approved the Wood Farms application following the staff recommendation. No significant concerns or opposition were noted during the discussion of this item. This approval allows the property owner to proceed with the subdivision process to create the three agricultural lots as proposed in the application materials. ## Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 2-B, Section 1, Lot 26 [timestamp: 04:30] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-20-00013, an amended final development plan for the Piramal Pharma Solution Expansion Project located at Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 2-B, Section 1, Lot 26. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting the item to the commission. The discussion centered on the proposed amendments to the final development plan for Piramal Pharma's expansion project within the Coldstream Research Campus development. The commission considered the amended development plan, which involved modifications to the previously approved project scope for the pharmaceutical company's expansion at the specified lot location. The item was presented as a discussion item requiring commission review and action. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission voted to approve the amended final development plan with conditions. The approval allows Piramal Pharma Solutions to proceed with their expansion project at the Coldstream Research Campus location, subject to meeting the specified conditions attached to the approval. The item was recommended for approval with conditions, and the commission ultimately voted to approve the amended final development plan as presented. ## Highwood Center, Lot 2-A (Walmart) [timestamp: 05:00] The commission reviewed an amended development plan for the Walmart location at 500 W. New Circle Road under case number PLN-MJDP-21-00029. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting the item to the commission. The proposal involved modifications to the existing Highwood Center development plan specifically for Lot 2-A, which houses the Walmart store. The amended plan required commission review and approval to proceed with the proposed changes to the site. Following discussion of the amended development plan, the commission voted to approve the item with conditions. The re-approval allows the development to move forward under the modified parameters while ensuring compliance with applicable planning requirements and standards. The approval represents a continuation of the existing commercial development at this New Circle Road location, with the amended plan addressing updates or changes to the original development parameters for the Walmart site within the larger Highwood Center project. ## Hymson Properties, Lots 7-15 [timestamp: 06:00] The board reviewed an amended final development plan for Hymson Properties, Lots 7-15, designated as case PLN-MJDP-22-00040. The proposal involved revising the development plan for two lots within the property. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the board. The discussion centered on modifications to the previously approved development plan, though specific details of the proposed changes were not detailed in the available materials. The planning staff had reviewed the amended development plan and provided a recommendation for approval, contingent upon certain conditions being met. These conditions were not specified in the summary materials but would typically address compliance with zoning requirements, infrastructure needs, or other regulatory standards. Following the presentation and any board discussion, the item was approved as recommended. The approval allows Hymson Properties to proceed with their revised development plan for the two lots, subject to fulfilling the conditions established by the planning staff. This approval represents the completion of the review process for the amended development plan, enabling the property owner to move forward with their modified development proposal. ## Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC [timestamp: 07:00] The commission reviewed an amended final development plan for Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC under case number PLN-MJDP-22-00049. The proposal involved modifications to reduce the total number of dwelling units in the development and reconfigure the layout of buildings and off-street parking areas. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting the item to the commission. The amended plan represented changes from the previously approved development proposal, with the applicant seeking to scale back the project's density while reorganizing the site design to better accommodate parking and building placement. Staff recommended approval of the amended final development plan, contingent upon specific conditions being met by the developer. The modifications were presented as improvements to the original design that would address site constraints and operational considerations. The commission approved the amended final development plan with the recommended conditions. The approval allows Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC to proceed with the revised development configuration, which features fewer residential units than initially proposed and an updated site layout that repositions buildings and parking areas according to the new design specifications. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of the August 11, 2022 minutes - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-FRP-22-00031** — passed (6-0): Approval of Sebastian Property, Unit 3-F with conditions and waiver - **PLN-MJDP-21-00055** — passed (6-0): Approval of Shriners Hospital / Masonic Temple Association of Lexington Kentucky with revised conditions - **PLN-MJDP-22-00041** — passed (6-0): Approval of Featheridge Park, Unit 5-A and 5-B with conditions - **PLN-MJDP-22-00046** — passed (6-0): Approval of Town Branch Park with conditions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Amendment to cancel September 29, 2022 work session - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Initiate a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to transfer enforcement functions --- ## Full transcript Off of the beaten path, a little dot on a state road map, that's where I was born and where I'll die. Things move at a slower pace, nobody's in the rat race, and these... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End The End ¶¶ Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Subdivision Items Committee meeting, excuse me, not committee, actually Urban County Planning Commission meeting, September 8th, is now 1.31. I'd like to call this meeting to order. First on the agenda, we have the approval of minutes and that's the August 11th minutes. The motion is, the floor is open for a motion. Ms. Worth? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the August 11th, 2022 minutes as submitted. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Penn. Okay, once Granicus gets up, we can vote via Granicus. Okay, do we have five, we've got six. Thank you, Rob. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Next up, we're going to skip a little bit on the agenda, go to page seven. We would like to get the approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit. The floor is open for a motion for the approval of performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of performance bonds and letters of credit as presented by state. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Second. to poll please vote via granicus as it comes available thank you okay any postponements and withdrawals not seeing any all right we'll move on to the staff and consent agenda thank you chairman forster we do have a number of items on today's regular agenda that qualify for our consent agenda and that's the abbreviated white sheet you have. I'll read through those and if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have any of these items heard, if you'll just kind of raise your hand at that time, or if the Planning Commission wishes to pull any of these off the consent agenda, we can have a staff presentation then as well. The first item appears on page two of our regular agenda, item A, And it's PLN FRP 22-29 for Lakeview Estates, Unit 2B, Block K, Lot 3. This is an amended final record plat. And it does have a finding associated with it for an access easement. This is three lots. Anybody that wishes to have that item heard today? Okay. The second item appears on page two, and it's item B, p l n fr p twenty two dash thirty four wood farms this is an agricultural zone and located at twenty four seventy brian station road so anyone present that wishes to have that item heard today mister phillips has our affidavit that a sign was posted as well for that so that's an order the third item appears on page three and it's item a p l n n j d p twenty dash thirteen for cold stream research campus unit to be section one specifically for a lot twenty six missus and and amended final development plan for fifteen seventy five mcgrathianna parkway this is a re-approval asking for a bit more square footage anyone in the audience that was just to have the cold stream plan heard see no one uh... Next on page three item B, PLN MJDP 21-29 for Highwood Center, Lot 2A. This is also an amended final development plan for Walmart and property located at 500 West New Circle Road. They are also asking for a re-approval today. See no one interested in that item either. Then we have two more items on the back page of the consent agenda. Page five, item D of our regular agenda, PLN MJDP 22-40 for the Heimson properties, lots seven through 15. This is for an amended final development plan as well for property located at 2895 Richmond Road. Is anyone present that wishes to have that heard? Nope. And then last, on page six, item G of your agenda, PLN MJDP 22-49 for the Haynes Brothers Properties LLC. And that's property located at 840 Angliana Avenue. Anyone for that one? I don't see anyone in the audience or the applicants who wish to have those items heard, so if the Planning Commission would like to, we can also make a presentation, if not, we can proceed with those six items. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, so the floor is open for a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented. Yes, Mr. Polk. Mr. Chair, move to approve the consent agenda as presented by staff with the conditions as presented by staff. Thank you. We have a second. Second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus once it comes available. Okay, consent agenda passes, thank you. Our staff will be ready in just a minute for the next item on our agenda, which is at the bottom of page two, the Sebastian property unit 3F. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. The first item that you see before you today is a final record plat. And as you all are aware, when final record plats, come on now. Pardon? Make sure it's turned on. Oh, I got you. I got you. It says on off. That's good. That helps me. I like words. Okay, here we go. So this is a final record plat, and it's before you today because there's a waiver associated with this particular plat. It is a Sebastian property, Unit 3F. This is property that's located off of Leastown Road. You may most recently remember that just up here you had a waiver request for townhouses that were present on three cul-de-sacs to the west of this particular cul-de-sac in the Sebastian development. This is the large detention basin that serves this area that is located there. What is interesting about this particular plat, it has 15 single-family lots depicted, as you can see here on the plat. But previously, the owner, developer, filed a display house plat. Now, that's a miner plat. That was created many, many years ago, and it allows a developer, builder, to come in, get this miner plat approved, and build model units to market their product. They did that here. Interesting, considering, as you all know, the huge demand we've had for houses lately and where that's gone. But when that is done, they are required to have utilities present. Infrastructure. You have to be able to get to these display lots. You have to be able to turn the electricity on. You have to be able to flush the toilet, that sort of thing, in the display house. They did that for five of these lots. Now, the caveat to a display lot, minor plat, is you cannot transfer that property off that display lot. It takes a final record plat. So here we go. This is the final record plat that includes those lots, and those are right here, right in here, these five lots, right in here. So, again, they extended their infrastructure. They've got things built up to this point. They're working on plans. They're prepared to expand the infrastructure, but they've run into a timing issue, and they're seeking a waiver of substantial completion. And under your subdivision regulations, basically that's 4-7C1, and substantial completion basically says that when you reach that point, all the public infrastructure is in place and can be utilized as to its intended purpose. Well, they haven't quite reached that point with the remainder of these lots right in here. and due again to some timing issues that they've run into, they've requested a waiver. This is a little bit unusual as a waiver request. The hardship is more of a financial, a paperwork. They kind of got caught by the system with the display house, the need for a vinyl record plat and their timing. but staff would agree with their appraisal of the situation and that there is no public health or safety issues related to this particular circumstance. They will have to build all the public infrastructure, provide the utilities before a house gets built and anybody can occupy the house. One of the recommendations of this waiver is that a note be placed on the plat That to that effect, again, we like to wave flags and say here you go. We want people to be informed and know what circumstances are. They also are going to bond all the improvements, these are the public improvements, 100%. So staff has talked with the division of engineering and we're all comfortable that public interest can be protected in this instance. So with that, we're recommending approval of the plat as well as the waiver that the applicant has requested. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for staff. Questions for staff? I've not seen any. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. Rory Kaley and I are here on behalf of Anderson Communities today. We agree with Mr. Martin's presentation. We are asking for the waiver because it's necessary to do financing of these lots. We need to have them on individual platted lots when we can do that. They will not be transferred, but they will be transferred to another entity as part of Anderson Community, so they're not being sold to a consumer as part of this transaction. We will be posting a 100% bond for these improvements to safeguard everybody's interest on that. With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions, but we'd request your approval of the plan and of the waiver request. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, Mr. Penn. So Mr. Murphy, these will cease being demonstration or model units, or will they continue to be model units? My understanding is that for the near future, they will continue to be model units. Okay. Now model units are always sold to consumer at some point. Some point, I'd hope so. All right, thank you. Mr. Murphy, I'm not seeing any other questions. Thank you. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay, not seeing any. We're bringing it back to the commission for any further questions. Or the floor is open for a motion. Ms. Worth? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN FRP 2231 with the 11 conditions, including the granting of the waiver to Article 4.5b. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any further discussion to that motion? Okay, all in favor, please vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So next up, that'll put us on page four of the agenda, item C, PLN, MJDP 21-55. I got a blue sheet. Put this one. Oh, yeah. And we have revised staff recommendations for this one. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, as the chairman has stated, next item on your agenda is a plan, MJDP 21-55, Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple Association. And again, yes, we have handed out revised conditions on that lovely blue sheet. This, as you all may recall, is an interesting situation in that this is a preliminary development plan. It was associated with the zone change. You all, as you may recall, recommended disapproval, went to council. It was approved. Council placed various conditions on the plan, on the zone change. So they brought the plan back. And so it's a preliminary development plan, again. So it's back before you. There will be a final development plan on this property for your review, consideration, and approval in the future. Now, with that, you can see, of course, here we are on Harrodsburg Road. The fountains at Palomar are up in this location here. They have access at Aqua Way, which is a signalized access point into that shopping center. Down here we have Palomar Boulevard in this location. You can see they're proposing the right in, right out into the commercial area of the zone change. And behind that area is the R3 portion of the property where we have single family homes and townhouses being proposed. 20 units with an extension of the public local street into here to cul-de-sac in this location. Now, out of the review of this, out of the discussion of these plans, there were several concerns that have been addressed, including, you can see the proposed landscaping, again, to help mitigate the relationship between the residential and the commercial. Not only is that required, but they've agreed and are showing additional landscaping in this location. There is a detention area here and here. There are and have been historically challenges with the drainage and the water issues in this area. So that, you can see there's two. You may recall the Ethington and Ethington property, which is further downhill, had some challenges with its drainage as well and had to amend their plan, in fact, to address some detention on that site. The access easement that comes from the fountains at Palomar will come through the property, come here, and connect to the local street. Now, you're, and by the way, just for informational purposes, this is a preliminary plan. There's a little over 51,000 square feet of commercial space in the buildings that you see here with 132 parking spaces that are distributed along through here and then around primarily the outlots. You can see this is a service road in the back for these commercial buildings at this location. a proposed pedestrian customer plaza at that location. There was concern about connections, about street connections on this property initially and proper connections to help serve both the development and the public. There was concern about the right in right out. Initially it was determined that a waiver might be necessary. further review and looking at the math, and there's a formula in your subregs, and it utilizes the traffic study, and they did do a traffic study, which was reviewed, accepted by staff on this particular zone change. And that formula allows you to use trip-ins to determine the spacing. And if there are no trip-ins, which frankly is the most common situation we deal with, we don't get traffic studies on most of these requests. Because it's a preliminary plan, a lot of times we don't get even these types of requests. They tend to come later. I believe the best example I could give you would be Newtown Pike. When that area out there in the springs, Newtown Springs, came in, that large commercial area, there had been a request on the preliminary plan of a right in, right out on that particular property. But there were management concerns. There were spacing concerns or some issues that staff had with that, some concerns with the functionality. The one thing that was interesting is that the math works. The trip-ins, when applied to the formula, specify a spacing between the two. You go from center line to center line from the two existing access points. does allow that access point. They've kind of split the difference. They actually exceed the spacing because they can. It's 500 and some feet from Aqua Way, and it's 500 and some feet from Palomar Boulevard. So in reviewing this, and staff has addressed the fact that they've withdrawn their waiver request. It was determined not to be necessary since the math dictated in the subregs that this access point could go in this location. We did state, and you can see it's 19 on the back of your revised conditions, that we would like to determine the design at the time of the final development plan. And we think that's important because we'll have a better feeling for any users that are being proposed this time. They can't build off this plan. They'll be ready to build when they bring that in. They'll be ready to address the infrastructure. And at that time, we can address some design issues that we think staff believes in working with them and working with the state highway cabinet. They're going to have to get a permit for this from them as well. and they'll review the design to help mitigate what may be some negative factors when you have access points. The good news is right in, right out don't tend to have as negative an impact, obviously, as a full access point would have, which, again, because there are median controls here. There was initially some concern about the possibility of conflicts due to left turns at the intersection to the west. Traffic counts show that to be minimal. They're just very minimal, that concern. There remains some concern on how best to address the right turn lanes because there will be multiple right turn lanes. And just to give you an example, because we don't know where we're going to end up until we get to the final development plan, sometimes it's better not to have a desil lane. Of course, there's high speeds out here. But sometimes, particularly where there's lower speeds, it's better just to have the through lane also be your right turn lane, particularly with right ins and right outs. The CVS down at Rosemont Garden and Broadway is a good example. It's very, very close to the intersection. There's no decel lane there. The decel lane is further up and serves the access point to the west. Just, again, to give you an example, we're not looking to design it or asking you to do that either. We're saying we're going to do that at the time of the final development plan. The other thing is, of course, because of the trail system, we want to be sure that the pedestrian concerns and needs are addressed with the access point as well. In terms of this connection, the council did agree with your recommendation and staff's recommendation to you that this connection be made. This is an access easement, as are the townhouses. They'll be served by access easements. At the time of the final development plan, preliminary subdivision plan. The preliminary subdivision plan will address this infrastructure and the residential area. The final development plan will address the commercial area. You will be tasked with making a finding on the adequacy of that access easement. And one of the things that we're recommending to you today, that it will include traffic calming as appropriate. And I will give you another example of the type of thing we've had some discussions, and that is tables, traffic tables. I'll go back to one of my favorite examples, the CVS at the old spring site. The McDonald's has a traffic table in front of it, and it has a crosswalk across it for pedestrians. Dual functions. Slows traffic down, gives pedestrians a safe place to cross. They're up. They're easy to see. They're elevated crossing that table. I live near there, so I utilize that quite a bit. I drive through there. But, again, that's something that we're going to work out with the applicant when they come in with their final development plan. So that will help slow people down as they come through here, those people that choose to utilize this local street connection that's been provided. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for staff. Oh, and again, as you see, your subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan. Your staff is recommending approval of this plan as well. Mr. Martin, did the council specify that this access easement would be built to street standards and with the assumption that the city would take it over? No, sir. And they did not get into that level of detail. They generally don't. That will be a topic of discussion for the planning commission. And to be honest with you, Mr. Penn, it would be very unlikely that we would take something in the heart of a commercial. or like that as public. That's where I was going with this. Yes, sir. No, that's, I mean, we have access easement in all our shopping centers virtually. Yeah, and we don't take those. We don't accept those. So it would be built to street standards. The access easement would be built to street standards. Would that be your assumption? We, I would make an assumption, as dangerous as those are, that one of the concerns that we have that actually benefits the applicant and future tenants is depth. That's right. That's the key. It's not so much curb and gutter, as you know, because public streets, curb and gutter also serve a stormwater function. But in this particular instance, that won't be necessary. However, truck traffic, car traffic, again. So we generally, our practice has been to recommend that they construct these to a public standard in terms of depth. I know it'll be addressed at the final development plan. I'm just trying to say, did the council send anything back in regard to that? Yeah, no, no. Just, they did specify the connection. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right, thank you, Tom. Applicant. Mr. Simpson? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm representing the applicant, which, although there's a corporate type name, it's the Webb and the Greer families developing this project. As you know, Woodford Webb is in the room today, as is Mark McCain, one of my partners, Wes Harnett. I'd be happy to respond to your questions. We're obviously pleased with the subcommittee's recommendation for approval as well as the staff's recommendation for approval. Since you all last heard this case in the zoning, changes have been made. One of the central issues of discussion when we came before you on the zoning aspect of this was the connectivity. and we didn't show any connectivity at the time, mainly because the neighborhood has experienced a great deal of cut-through traffic over the years and they were concerned about the cut-through traffic that might ensue through this development. But after you all heard the case on the zoning, we met with the neighbors and we also talked with the staff and we came up with a proposed amendment to deal with connectivity and provided for the connection through Syringa, which we're showing here, and also connecting up to the fountains through the service road. As Tom mentioned, one of the features that we want to institute, certainly as a developer and also the neighbors who are here today in support of this plan, is that we want to slow traffic down on this service road access easement, if you will, from the edge of the property to the north as it cuts through to get to Syringa. So we minimize and have a deterrence about cut-through traffic. We want to slow it down. We don't want cars speeding through there. It's not safe for the customers that will likely use the commercial units that are there. As you know, part of our plan was a series of mini parks that we've scattered throughout the development, focal points, if you will, for the neighborhood to use, walk to, The new neighborhood that's proposed to be built behind the commercial, the town homes and the single family homes, as well as the existing Palomar neighborhood so that people could stop and visit. You don't see this in Lexington, hardly at all, these little mini parks where people can have gathering spaces and have a cup of coffee or a milkshake or an ice cream cone. This is a very innovative kind of accommodation that the Webbs and the Greers have made to make it an amenity, if you will, for the existing neighborhood as well as the future neighborhood. The right in, right out is very important. It's important to the neighborhood to provide an access point so that all the traffic doesn't have to come through Palomar Boulevard to get in and out of the development. They're down here today, and certainly in support of the write-in, write-out. As Tom mentioned, there was some initial discussion about needing a waiver. As that issue has been examined, we qualify within the existing guidelines for the write-in, write-out. You all have certainly approved write-in and write-outs all over Lexington, and so this is an important feature. We've already received conceptual approval for the write-in, write-out from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. District 7 has given us conceptual approval on the write-in, write-out as we're showing it. So Frank mentioned or asked a question about the standards of the road connection, the service road connection. Would it be built to city street standards? Certainly the depth of the pavement will be because it's going to be private property and it needs to last a long time. And so that needs to be taken care of. In terms of the actual street configuration, because of the way it has to turn, wouldn't necessarily meet your street standards if you're having a residential subdivision. But in terms of the commercial development, and the really important thing is, will this pavement last? Will it be maintained? And it will. It will be built to the depth of what a public street would have to comply with. So we're pleased with the recommendations for approval. The neighborhood is here. Nathan Billings represents them. We've worked very closely with this neighborhood, as you know, for months and months and months, really dating back years in terms of the fountains at Palomar. It's been a close working relationship. We have been very transparent in everything that we've done and will continue to do on any amendments that we have. We always have a neighborhood meeting before we come down here and explain what we're going to do, and we've done that. So we believe that we've done the homework that's necessary. And with your subcommittee's recommendation for approval and the staff's recommendation for approval, we ask for the approval as well. I'll be happy to respond to any questions. Any questions from Mr. Simpson? Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. So is there any citizens that would like to speak? I know Mr. Billings' name was mentioned, he's up. How you doing, Nathan? good afternoon mr chairman ladies and gentlemen the commission mr pen good to see you back uh... staff um... ladies and gentlemen public my name is nathan billings and with billings law firm it's my pleasure to speak briefly today on behalf of the palomar hills community association uh... this is a a long time coming for this preliminary development plan and uh... on behalf of the neighborhood we want to thank the developer and staff are continuing to work for us i guess really the the issue that sort of gets to today is the the connectivity issue in the right in right out and then everyone wants to thank staff and the developer for listening to their concerns continue to work through the process to um to allow a solution to a a potential problem and that is connectivity of the commercial development through the neighborhood while connectivity was never a desire of the neighborhood they they agreed back at the zone change stage to allow for that and we do believe that the right in right out that mr martin sort of spoke at length about and has some engineering issues to be resolved on a final plan still need to be addressed but we think that's a good solution to prevent palomar and asante which hasn't been mentioned as the sort of primary and secondary ways into the commercial development other than the fountains so we uh we agree with the staff revised recommendations we are thankful for the process and thinking through these issues i know there's a number of the board members here and 14 or 15 members of the neighborhood here as well to to support the right in right out and we want to again thank the developer for continuing work with us i think there's there's been at least seven or eight meetings um public meetings and numerous meetings with the board i know the same way with staff so we we are in favor of staff recommendation thank you mr chairman thank you mr billings is Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. Not seeing any. Is there anyone out there from the neighborhood who wants to step up and say something? I'm an old neighborhood association president, so if you wanna. Let's share my heart. If you wanna voice your support, please do it. I think Mr. Billings voiced their support. Good afternoon, I'm Sam Dunn and I'm at 2204 Pepper Tree Court in the neighborhood. Couple of things, first of all, you all caused us to do our homework after the January meeting. And one of the things we did was go back and look at the comp plan and understand some of the key components that are involved. And you talk about in the comp plan, engagement with the neighbors and the developers and the staff. And that was one of the things that we really strive to do in the months leading up to the zone change. And then as we've moved from that process on, Mr. Duncan has been very open for us to come in and visit with him. We also have worked with the developers as far as the many items that we had to deal with. Connectivity was huge for us. And allowing the right in and right out takes the Syringa drive, which is 30 feet wide, and keeping it from being a major entrance into that development. So this final hurdle with the right in and the right out and making Syringa a service road which is what we envisioned it to be thanks to the staff has allowed us to overcome that hurdle but we feel like we've honored the spirit of the comp plan by working with the developer and working with the staff and with the city as a whole with the the council and all and we thank you for that opportunity to be able to be involved in the process because that's our home and you've allowed us to have input in the process so thank you very much Thank you. I'm not seeing anyone else, so we can bring it back to the commission. Any further questions, concerns, or the floor is open. Ready for a motion. Yes sir, Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2155 with revised conditions as presented on this blue sheet. And I want to thank everybody involved in this. We were wondering if we were going to get it back and we'll at least see it one more time. So thank you for your work. So we have a motion. I'm just laughing at Julie. She can't figure out how to do it. Seconded by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. I got to do to get out. Oh, yeah. Okay. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll invite you to our chili fest. Just bring us some on first name basis now. I will say it was a painful day when we had to decline. It really was because you all were very passionate in the process and it was very, very difficult. So it's good to see the process work in the end, so thank you all very much. Thank you. Enjoy your Thursday. See you. So Tom, you're up. Page five, PLNMJDP 22-41 and we have revised staff recommendations on the paint sheet. I don't know if I ever know her name. He won't know after me. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we're going to move down to page five, the bottom. This is a major development plan, 22-41, Feather Ridge Park, Unit 5A and 5B, and Summerhill. This is also a preliminary development plan. There will be a final development plan on this property. And for those of you on the subdivision committee who heard perhaps the initial discussion, you'll know why there will need to be a final development plan. This is a development, this particular apartment complex here, we're at Kennesaw and Armstrong Mill. And this goes back to the 1970s. This was rezoned and developed in the 70s. So this is an older apartment complex in this location, of course, with older subdivisions around it as well. Again, we have Armstrong Mill in this location. They are proposing to build two units, two apartment units, an extension of this development, 48 total units in these two buildings. They're looking at access to Armstrong Mill Road at this location. And by the way, that's been evaluated and it will fit. There's a small road lane in this location that is intended to eventually be closed and part of our trail system. And that trail will be coming down across the front of this property. And that's one of the conditions that will need to be addressed at the final development plan stage. What is interesting about this property, and it is interesting, this is a challenge. This is an interesting piece of property. You see here floodplain. And this is FEMA. This is regulatory 100-year floodplain in this area that kind of separates this from this lot. And this is a separate lot. It actually is a separate lot separated from the parent tract. Along with the floodplain and the required setback, you know, the 25-foot setback on, there is a force main sanitary sewer easement running through the property. There is another sewer easement running through the property here. And, of course, you have a 20-foot setback off the public right-of-way. There is an easement in this location, an easement in this location, and this entire area, kind of that I'm outlining like this, is a detention easement, a drainage. So it's a heavily, heavily impacted piece of property. Now, here's something that I believe you all know because you've been, now that you've had experience and you've seen this, is that when you have easements and you have these types of issues, physical issues, development issues, they can be addressed. They can be addressed through construction. They can be addressed through literally moving lines and putting in new lines and that sort of thing. And that's going to have to happen here. One of the most important things that have to be addressed is, of course, filing a conditional letter, a map revision, a clomer for the floodplain. They're going to have to address the floodplain. Their goal is to shrink it, make it more manageable. This is not, I won't call it, I won't say it's usual, but it does happen and it's been done. It was most – we modify our floodplains all over our community where necessary. We try not to. We try to leave them alone. The good news is this is at the upper end of the watershed. It runs on down, runs down through the WT Young property that you all may recall was rezoned, which has been on hold due to sewer capacity issues. Right up through here is Harper Woods, Harper Wade Woods. after Tracy's lovely daughter. They did a flood study. They did a flood study for that development. You may recall that greenway that runs through it. So again, they're going to do a study. Those take considerable time and a lot of work. You jump through a lot of hoops with FEMA to get those things done. In essence, what you do is you file design with FEMA and say, this is how we're going to do it. And then you have to go do it, and then you have to submit that to FEMA. and show that you did it the way they approved you to do it. And there will be lots of permits required, oversight required, and that sort of thing. So they're going to embark on that. So again, that will have to be resolved and taken care of at the time of your final development plan because they're going to have to pull permits to do the work. They're going to have to pull permits to address some of the easement issues and where their pipes are in the ground and where new pipes might have to go in the ground. And one of the most important conditions that we would like to point out to you is number 17 on your revised handouts in pink is they need to denote on this plan the proposed location for the new sanitary sewer trunk line that is going to take that pump station offline at the end of Armstrong Mill, if you remember that discussion. There's a pump station. It's going to go offline. Due to various circumstances, Division of Water Quality had to change their plans, had to change their design. So they're coming back up Armstrong Mill, and they're going to need to come through this property. There is room. The applicant has stated, the applicant's engineer has stated there's room. So we'd like to see them show us where they think that ought to go. Water quality will approve that. Now, that doesn't mean at the time of the final development plan there may be some tweaks or may be some changes. Something may happen. But the key there is it's a symbiotic relationship. Until they have sewer capacity, they won't be building these units. So they don't get sewer capacity, and neither does the public, until that line is completed. And by the way, just so you'll know, and this is just for information, they are aggressively pursuing additional easements and working on this. This is a pretty fast-paced project for Division of Water Quality. And again, that's relative to the consent decree and accomplishing those requirements. So, again, that's an issue that addresses this plan. The easement conflicts, again, as I stated, you can see the conditions that have been changed have basically allowed us to meet with the applicant, discuss with them their plan forward. So we know that when the final comes in, the direction we're going for them to develop this property and meet the various constraints that exist on this property. And again, the final development plan will be the most appropriate time for that. They will, of course, not only have to meet FEMA's and DLW, the state's requirements on the floodplain. they will have to meet Article 19 as well in the zoning ordinance. And again, there will be changes have to be made, again, with the easements and to make this more functional and remove the conflicts. It's not unusual, our development of a site, an older site, for there to be conflicts. There just happens to be a considerable number of challenges here. In regards to the trail that I mentioned, they're going to establish an easement in essence about 20 feet. There exists a 10-foot sidewalk easement. That's not enough. We need more room. We're going to get a 12-foot trail in there. Now, one of the issues that came out of that, which is a timing issue that was discussed at length with the applicant, is that the good news is there's a capital project. There's money for that trail. And when we build a trail, if we come down through this right away, we'll actually build curb, gutter, sidewalk, well, trail, it'll be a trail combined facility. We'll do those capital improvements. What we won't do, and the applicant will have to do it, is we won't build them an entrance. They're going to have to build their own entrance to the public right away. And then traffic engineering is requiring a taper, kind of a right-turn taper. Again, it's not a full desil lane, but it'll be a taper to help with, again, right-turn movements into the property. They'll be responsible for that. And it's kind of whoever gets there first will do their share of the improvements. If for some reason our capital project gets held up and they are able to move forward, they will be required to do standard improvements to Armstrong Mill. And our people just have to come in and if we have to change them or tear them out and redo them, well, we do that through these capital projects. If we come in first, we'll put them in. They'll have to modify them according to their responsibility for access and the taper. So that's just a timing issue that is, let's see, there we go. Number 19 on the back of your handout. out. So again, staff is recommending approval of this preliminary development plan and we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Yes, Mr. Mikkel. Yeah, when I'm looking at this development plan, so you spoke in depth about it encroaching on a floodplain, but it also encroaches on a stream in a natural area. and what, you know, you said to move the floodplain, they've got to basically reengineer this stream. It seems like a lot of our projects in some of our older neighborhoods are focused on repairing the damage that we've done in those neighborhoods by moving streams, by building retaining walls, by taking out riparian zones, by destroying the environment around the streams. Why are we, why would we be looking to allow them to do that here? They are entitled to address the floodplain through a clomer, and they will have to meet FEMA's standards. They also have to meet our Article 19 standards, which also will address the vegetative buffer and some of those other concerns that we have locally in addressing the floodplain. I mean, as drawn, the stream flows through where they want to build a parking lot right now. Oh, it's hard to tell on this drawing. The stream itself is kind of in this location. It's floodplain. Now, you got it. That's the real, they're in a floodplain. That's the issue, the stream in and of itself. Oops. Come back here. Well, I see the floodplain hatch marks, but the stream is marked on the development plan as well. Yeah, it's the dotted line through here. Yeah. But again, yes, and their plan is to hopefully reduce the size of that through their engineering. So that will reduce the conflict. Well, the dotted line goes straight through their parking lot. And that will be an aspect of their design. It may be put into a culvert. That may be a solution. And then this is a question I think I know the answer to, but I want to ask it. Are they prohibited from building closer to Armstrong Mill? Is that why they're pushing so far back into this? They have a 20-foot setback that they have to meet, but it's the easement demands. There is an easement in that area, and that is the preferred location for our new sanitary trunk line. So that's the preferred location, so they'll have to address that. So yes, that does limit the buildings in that regard. And the trail. And the trail, yes, the trail. But the trail won't impact what's in the ground, whereas a building would, obviously. Thanks, those are my questions. I see any more questions, Martin, thank you. Applicant, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Cayley with EAA Partners. We agree with Tom's presentation. I have basically two requests. item 11 is the DWQ's approval of the capacity assurance program. During the subdivision committee, we were told that this is the one area in town that currently doesn't have capacity. That's what all this discussion about the new sewer line is about, that they're going to be improving that. I'd like to have their approval letter, which I don't think they could give me today, pushed back to the final development plan phase. phase. That would be when they've done their work, we've got a new sewer line, we would have our clomer done at that point, we'd be back in front of you then. Unless they've said they would sign off. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I didn't think I could. Okay. And the other item would be 18, which is the requirement of an easement minor record plat for the new trunk line. Typically when the city takes right away, new sewer lines are going to do it by a deed. And I think that the deed is a legal document. We would reflect that on our future documents, but I don't know that I'd have to have a plat duplicating what the deed already did just to file a development plan. I don't think that they're planning to take property as much as using easement. Because they already have a trunk line on your- Right, they want to move the trunk line and the easement below. So they're freeing up your land on the north to occupy the land on the south. And so I think their plan would not be to own that, but to- Easement. For an easement. Right. So this is an easement, not a deed. And Rory, just the Division of Water Quality has been submitting plats on a lot of these easements. So it would be their responsibility to submit the plat for the- Tom's not going to- Well, yeah. Make that their responsibility. It may well be. And our whole point is that the final development plan where things are going in the ground, before that plan is ultimately certified, we were asking for that easement to be established. And if it's established by deed? If the pipe is in the ground. Okay. If it's established by a deed of easement, we'd reflect that, but I didn't think it should be the client's responsibility to make a plat that reflected what the city already did by deed. Right, well, that's correct. They have been actually paying to have the plats done. Somebody should do a plat. Yeah. So, yeah. It's all real weak, man. I think it should be either pushed off and just reflected later, or it can be a deed or... I think we could resolve that issue at the time of the final development plan. And I think part of it, Rory, is the issue, and so the Planning Commission understands, is that our division of water quality is trying to fast track this particular project because of its importance. So it may actually beat you all in terms of development. They may need to go in the ground. Yes. Right. They've been contacted with the property owner. Right. He has asked for the alignment. We haven't received it yet to know where the proposed new line will be. And Rory, it would make this condition moot. If it's recorded by an easement. Yeah, if they come through and the line's in the ground and then you all come in behind with your final development plan, yeah, I think this condition would be moved. Again, we're trying to be very, very careful and protective of what we're required to do under the consent decree. So that's really an abundance of caution is all we're dealing with here. But I do think that that's... And I would say a final development plan doesn't record your easement. No. Right, that's right. And typically, we like to see the easements on plats. It will be a recorded easement by deed of easement is how they do them. They did it at Armstrong Mill. Yeah. Well, yeah, that'd be great if the city would do that, what they're taking, yes. So Mr. Martin's not going to require the other Mr. Martin to do a plat. But if we agree that this one's moot, if they take it one way or the other, how will I know if the condition stays as written? It says I have to have the plat first. Staff and applicants, let's remember that this is the Planning Commission meeting, not a staff meeting. Mr. Penn has a question. Yeah, I appreciate the sidebar conversation. I'm not smart enough to understand this. Let me ask you a question, Roy. Do you need to have this before you file through Clomer or have you already filed for your Clomer? We have not filed for Clomer. The owner wanted to make sure that there was no other issues that would be holding him up with the development plan, which is why it's only a preliminary now. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that for what those of us up here listening in our conversation, it makes you wonder if we should even be hearing this now. So I want to focus this back on why are we hearing it now and what do you need? We need approval of a preliminary development plan that shows he can develop the property for him to move forward with the clomer. For your applicant, too? Yes. Yeah, the same two year that they're talking about for the sewers, for the trails, is probably what we estimate would be for the clomer as well. So it's a process that's going to take a while, he just needs to know that there's a way forward. So you need approval of our preliminary development? Thank you. And to clarify, Mr. Penn, the Division of Engineering, our urban county engineer, has to sign off on their application for the CLOMER, right? And he wants to know there's a plan in place that's possible before he agrees for them to move forward. Hold on a second, Robert. Yes, Mr. Bell. No, I just wanted to, should we change 18 to resolve? It's going to be resolved. Again, our concern is our government project time versus their ability to develop this problem due to the other constraints. There's nothing to change to resolve. It's to know. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Any further questions for the applicant? Yes. Mr. Mickler. I have a similar question, which is that the bulk of the preliminary plan that is in the floodplain, and specifically the area that goes over the existing streamway, is parking lot. and what were the discussions as to why that was necessary? Parking is necessary. Not why parking is necessary, but I guess. It's a whole series of stuff. So you figure out where your access point you can have between Kennesaw and I think Esquires Lane. So you get yourself a central spot. You see where all the easements are. There's the sanitary sewer easements there. We know that that's probably going to be upgraded with this new trunk. That won't be something that can be changed. So you start looking at the areas that are open. And with, you can change a clomer, which changes the floodplain and that changes your drainage easements. That's all something a landowner is entitled to attempt through the process. This flood plain and where it's located, it's already piped at Kennesaw and it's piped at Squires Hill Lane. Just above Kennesaw on the Harper property is the very end of this FEMA flood plain. So we are at the tail end of all this water. So we're not affecting a large portion or we're not affecting something downstream that has consequences throughout the whole area. So where you have your access point lined up and you can see that you can, it's on there. Some of the parking would put some of the creek in a pipe, would give us a clomer, we'd realign. We'd have to release the drainage easements to accommodate for the new grading plans. It is the place that let us do, have the most available land and do the least amount of work across the site. You don't have to pipe the whole distance from Kennesaw down. Just where we need the parking located behind those buildings. Thank you. I don't think there's, doesn't seem to be any more questions at the moment. Thank you. All right, thank you. I guess I'll ask this question out of habit. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Not seeing any. We'll bring it back to the commission. Mr. Penn, you had any other questions? No. You good? Okay. I know why we're doing it. Yes, Mr. Bell. If time permits, am I able to make a motion? The floor is open for you. I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2241 Feather Ridge Park, Unit 5A, 5B, with the 19 conditions changing 18 to resolve. Okay, thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Bell. Do we have a second to that motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn, second that motion. Any further discussion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, the ayes have it. Mr. Kelly, I see you. You're up, smiling. Were we going to change number 11 to the DWQ's approval at the final development plan? Yes. It's not written that way. Does that mean with your approval, Mr. Martin? Yes. So in my motion, do we need to bring it back up? I would, just to notate that. Change number 11 to, I'm sorry, what should it read? The Division of Waterfall is approval of capacity and time to find development. As stated by Mr. Martin there, as well as 18 to resolve. Okay. So do we need the... 19 conditions. Okay, we have a motion. We still have a second by Mr. Penn. Is there any changes? Is there room for further discussion? Not now. But if you have one, Mr. Pohl, I'm not going to tell you, no. Mr. Pohl, go ahead. I'm just curious about whether there was any consideration of moving the trail to the far side of the property instead of along the Armstrong Mill. According to our pedestrian planner. Tom, can you use your microphone? Can you use your microphone? Yeah. In our discussions with Scott Thompson, our pedestrian planner, Graham, They have expressed a desire to run it along the front by the right-of-way. That is where it's planned, and that's why it's already moved to an actual capital project. That's already been determined, the location. Yeah. Okay. All right. Do we need to re-vote? It's going to be the same, but we can do it again. Okay. All in favor, please vote. Okay, the ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you. Page 6, PLN, MJDP 22-46, Town Branch Park. Mr. Chair, and before Mr. Martin speaks, I've spoken to Ms. Jones. I serve on a subcommittee of Town Branch Park and Ms. Jones, and I have no financial benefit to it. And she feels that I can participate. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are on page six, item F, major development plan, 22 desktors, the Town Branch Park. And this is the final development plan for the Town Branch Park. I'm sure that the zone change on this is very much in your memory. This final development plan, as you can see, here's the park, Rupp Arena, Civic Center, in this location, High Street. Oh, I thought I heard something. I only have one good ear, by the way, and it doesn't work all the time. So again, and here is the extension here, the service road to serve Rupp Arena in this area. The trail system. There's a couple of significant changes from the preliminary development plan with the Zonch. As you all are aware, with the church and the right-of-way, in this location there will be no access into the park from that right-of-way at that location. The trail, our trail, will come through here. And originally it had been designed to completely loop and come in and hook up with the trail as it runs on out Manchester Street in that direction at this location. On this plan, they are bringing it down through here. This will be the Town Branch Trail, and it will be open 24-7. They've changed that. The other change that they made was they had thought about opening up a tributary to Town Branch. And this, of course, is Town Branch, this location where it daylights. It flows under Rupp Arena, and daylights here. A lot of floodplain again on this property as well. But they were going to open that up, and they discovered, well, that had way too many ramifications and costs associated with it, so they're going to leave it alone as it is. Now, what remains, we have this area here where the stage is going to be, concessions, the bathrooms, that sort of thing for programmed appearances, shows, concerts, et cetera. This open park area is from the original proposal. It remains, as does the dog park. Here we have our dog park. And then again, the children's play area and the splash park. These were all central features of the park itself. In addition, from the discussions and concerns at the time of the zone change, they are showing a vehicular access from High Street. And you can see a traffic circle here and here. As you all know, that was a big concern for staff for the functionality of this park and for public health and safety access. They are maintaining the proposed pedestrian access. Well, there will be a tunnel over a portion of that that will lead to the overlook. They are maintaining the overlook over the amphitheater, and you can see the seats here in this location. now as your staff reviewed this we have all our standard sign-offs all the agencies will need have will need to weigh in on this project as sign-offs there are some cleanup items they need to dimension they have their square footage accounted for but they need to dimension it that's how we verify those things and verify that square footage they need to identify these red rectangles. They had been identified previously. That dropped off. It's our understanding those are like food kiosks. But again, they need to identify that. They need to dimension their patio plaza areas. We've asked them to identify the delineate areas around the dog park, which this color up does quite nicely. And then clarify green space and hardscape areas adjacent to the plaza and then adjacent to the play yard. On the development plan as it comes in, as you know, they're not in color. There's a lot of lines, a lot of areas, and sometimes there's clotheslines, and you look and you try to figure out what is this going to be. And in essence, you could almost group these concerns into one, And that is clarify your hardscape, clarify your greenscape. It's park. And we need that clear. That is, of course, going to play into their stormwater design as well when it comes to pervious and impervious surface. Again, we just need to have that clarified on the final development plan. There were some important discussion items, and your subdivision committee reviewed these. I think we had a very good discussion at that level, but these discussion items remain for a good full discussion here in front of the full body. And with the importance of this park, the importance of this project, as you all know, it's predominantly private, but there is some public participation in it. It's a good project. It's a good use for some property that is certainly underutilized and situated quite interesting, has a lot of history to it. Some people may remember that at one time that was proposed to be Lake Lexington. That goes back sometime. But again, it is a wonderful amenity that's being proposed for our downtown. But one of the issues, of course, was access to High Street. We're pleased to see that there. They've agreed with staff. One of the issues that impacts this that was discussed at your subdivision committee was funding. There was a grant proposal by the government to help fund this. They didn't get the grant. However, the good news is there was just over $6 million budgeted to match that grant. That money is still available to them to develop this access to the park. And they can elaborate on that, and I suspect they will. Pedestrian access to Oliver Lewis Way. It's been a concern that was expressed early on at the preliminary that they try to provide some sort of pedestrian access. This is a challenging area all through here. Not only is it developed, there's serious slope considerations. There's the overpass of Alva Lewis Way. They are not adverse, however, and staff would agree that when the Salvation Army property redevelops and staff is aware that they are actively seeking to move and get to a new campus where they can better provide and meet the demand for their services at Salvation Army, we would anticipate that this would redevelop. And at that time, we would want to discuss access into the park, and of course the park is very much amenable to that. And then I jump past it, but I'll go back to the parking and the parking management. That's a big issue for the neighborhood, of course, nearby. They have been impacted a lot by Rupp Arena parking and that sort of thing. Of course, we're all aware there's a large parking lot there on High Street. It's also going to be redeveloped. They've accepted proposals. They're going to move forward on redeveloping that. There's going to be a parking garage. There's going to be parking spaces. We handed out to you what they provided to your subdivision committee, which is a parking breakdown for the area. And it provides a total of the parking in a four-block area around the park. part of their explanation is that the entity that manages rup arena and the community and our convention center who also manage the park allow for a high level of coordination when there's events to try to avoid that type of parking conflict and certainly if there's an event they could advertise the availability of parking. Part of the staff's concern is, of course, just everyday usage. We do anticipate, as they do, there will be a lot of walkers, bikers, people like that coming to this park, certainly we hope so. But there will be people that will be driving. They'll be driving downtown. They'll want to see the park. They'll want to be there. They'll want to participate. Particularly, you know, you have a children's playground, a splash park, that'll be a pretty big draw. the only parking that's really being proposed is right along this drive in this location so unfortunately with a lot of our urban parks there's not a lot of parking provided that's just an issue so yes people will have to park elsewhere for there but again we left that on as a discussion item for the full planning commission so that you could hear their explanation and their vision and their ideas on how they'll address that issue. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Tom. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission and staff, I'm Michael Ades. I'm in-house counsel for Town Branch Park. Also here today is Allison Langford, the executive director of the park. Steve Vogel, strand engineers, our local civil engineer. and John Rohr, who is counsel for Lexington Center Corporation, who is going to be the landlord for the park. The park will be leasing the approximately nine and a half acres from the LCC for an initial term of 60 years and then with a couple of option terms beyond that. To start with, the park agrees with items 1 through 17 on your agenda. And let me just say that for the last probably eight months, we have had numerous meetings with the major LFUCG departments involved, water quality, environmental quality, engineering, traffic, etc. and we have gotten and I would like to thank everybody involved with the government. They've been very cooperative and we've had very direct and frank exchanges with them. We had a major meeting last week we even had a significant Zoom meeting this morning on issues. I'd like to briefly respond to the last three items on the agenda, the discussion items, and then of course any of us will be glad to respond to any questions that the staff or that the members of the Commission may have. With regard to parking, I I understand you do have a copy of this exhibit showing within four blocks an easy walk of the park, approximately 7,300 spaces. Now, obviously at any one time, all of those spaces are not available for the park, just like all of them are not available for Rupp Arena events. The maximum capacity of a major event at the park is approximately 5,000 people. That would be like for a concert or at the stage in the plaza area with the amphitheater. For example, Picnic with the Pops is anticipated to relocate there. And of course, that compares to the 20,000 people that attend major events at Rupp Arena. So most of the park major events are going to be on a weekend. They're going to be, if they're during the week, they're likely to be at night and even on weekend nights for major concerts. In the public garages, the city garages, the hotel garages on weekends and even on weeknights are basically clear of monthly office parking tenants. and there will be some walkers, people staying at hotels, people coming to events from surrounding neighborhoods, of course. So we anticipate that there will be ample parking available for major park events. We also will be coordinating events with Lexington Center Corporation so that there will not be a 20,000-person event at Rupp Arena, for example, and a 5,000 or even a 3,000 event held at the same time at the park. That's not in our interest. It's not in Lexington Center Corporation's interest. So we will be coordinating scheduling, of course, to avoid that sort of conflict. So in conclusion, we believe that we are going, there will be ample parking for people attending park events. And of course, it is an urban park. There is no requirement for parking. but we will be coordinating with all of the available garages. And of course, on weekends and weeknights, there's street parking downtown as well at no cost. The next discussion item is access to West High Street. I think Tom covered that pretty well. That was a major request of the staff and the commission at the preliminary development plan stage that there be a connection between West High Street and Manchester Street, a vehicular access. As you can see on the final development plan here, we have shown that access. that's been shown to traffic engineering and other departments. Any details of actual construction of that will, of course, be working with the appropriate governmental departments to meet all the requirements. So we believe that condition 19 has been totally satisfied. The final discussion item is the question of pedestrian access to Oliver Lewis Way. This would be at the northwest corner, at the corner of Oliver Lewis Way, the proposed park property in the south west corner of the Salvation Army property. That would be for pedestrians coming down Newtown Pike who would be crossing West Main Street and wanting to possibly go into the park at that point. They always have the option of continuing along Oliver Lewis Way, And then there's a pedestrian access at Manchester Street directly into the park. The park, as I think all of you can probably visualize, the park sits about 25 feet elevation below the elevation of West Main Street, the elevation of West High, and the elevation of Oliver Lewis Way. And at that particular corner, there is a very steep slope that's almost a 45-degree slope at that corner. There's also a bridge abutment there for the Oliver Lewis Way. and then there's a fence that extends northerly from that bridge abutment around 15 or 20 feet. And it essentially means that if there were to be a pedestrian access at that point, it has to be virtually on the Salvation Army property. Given the potential, the probable, we believe, development of that property, we would certainly be amenable to working with that developer to create a pedestrian access across the very rear of that property as it redevelops into the park. Given the fact that it's still Salvation Army property now, we were not in a position to simply approach the Salvation Army and request an easement at this point in time, given the fact that their property may be redeveloped in the next year or two or three. Just for your information, the schedule for the park is to go under construction in the first quarter of next year. Construction period is probably a few more than 20 months. park anticipates opening to the public in the spring first quarter of 2025 which is approximately two and a half years from from now so with that we appreciate the cooperation of the staff and all the urban county government agencies and we'll be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Pretty quiet. Great. Okay. I'm going to bring it back to the commission. Pretty quiet, so the floor is open for a motion. Leave me over here. No, go ahead. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Move for approval of PLN MJDP 2246 Town Branch Park with the 20 conditions as stated. Should we make that 17? Yeah. Are you taking out 18, 19, and 20? Sure, that'd be great. Maybe so staff is okay. Agreed, yep, those have all been addressed. Okay, great. Great, so with the 17 conditions. Okay, thank you Mr. Bell. We have a second. Seconded by Mr. Penn. Or whoever does that. Ms. Pines, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously, thank you. Thank you all. Yep, thank you. Nice project. Commission item, I think it's next. So the floor is open. We need a motion to cancel our September 29th meeting. Floor is open. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move to amend our filing schedule to discontinue the September 29th meeting. Okay, and seconded by Ms. Wirth. I don't think we need to have any discussion. Please vote via Granicus. All righty. Motion passes. Staff items? We do have one item this afternoon to ask the commission to initiate a zoning text amendment Recently, the council acted to move zoning enforcement personnel back to the Division of Building Inspection. I think Jim will correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's five positions, whereas zoning compliance issues will remain with the Division of Planning. But we do need to update the zoning ordinance to reflect that enforcement activities will move to building inspection. Just zoning? Just the zoning enforcement? Yes, that's all we do currently is zoning enforcement. We follow up on conditional uses, but generally it's just, yeah. Of course, building inspection already does enforcement of their own regulations. So you want a motion to allow? To initiate a text amendment to the zoning ordinance that shifts zoning enforcement to the division of building inspection. Okay. Mr. Pinn, you taking that motion? I will. Thank you. I move that the Planning Commission start or enact a text amendment to allow for the movement of the zoning enforcement back to building inspection. We have a motion. We have a second. Second by Mr. Poe. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. All right. Okay. Anything else? Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to remind you all that we do have a Planning Commission work session next Wednesday, September 15th, at 1.30 in the Phoenix Building, third floor. We will start off with an update for the open space Zoda. You've heard some about that, but we'll have a more formal presentation on that from staff. And then we'll invite you all to adjourn from that space and reconvene at the Met at Midland and 3rd Street, where we'll be given a formal tour of that site and have representatives of the Met there to talk with us about the development process, what's there and maybe what else is to come. So we'll start off in the Phoenix building at 1.30 next Thursday, and then we'll move on to a field trip after that. So it's Thursday, it's not Wednesday. I'm sorry? It's Thursday, our work session, our normal work session. Yes, your normal work session Thursday the 15th, yes. Okay, meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.