# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - December 15, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 15, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5715 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5715?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-12-15 - **Last revised**: December 15, 2022 - **Length**: 16,833 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 December 15, 2022, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed three agenda items during the session, with all three development proposals receiving approval. The meeting included eight motions and votes, demonstrating active deliberation on the various matters before the commission. Four members of the public provided comments during the proceedings, contributing community input to the decision-making process. All three major development projects on the agenda—the Crestwood Montessori School Redwood Co-op School Expansion, the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington project, and the Turner Property 4, LLC proposal—were ultimately approved by the commission. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 15, 2022 meeting: • Ivy Barksdale • Judy Worth • Frank Penn • Janice Meyer • Headley Bell • Bruce Nicol • Zach Davis • Graham Pohl • Robin Michler All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included several postponements and approvals, all decided by unanimous vote. **Postponements:** • PLN-MAR-22-15 Dutch Bros, LLC was postponed to January 26 [timestamp: 00:30] • PLN-MAR-22-0002 Caller Properties, LLC was postponed to January 26, with Judy Worth providing the second [timestamp: 01:00] • PLN-MJDP-22-62 Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association was postponed to January 12 [timestamp: 02:00] **Approvals:** • PLN-MJDP-22-00058 Crestwood Montessori School Redwood School Expansion was approved unanimously, with Headley Bell providing the second [timestamp: 03:00] • PLN-MJDP-22-63 Shriners Hospital was approved unanimously with 20 conditions, with Judy Worth providing the second [timestamp: 04:00]. A separate motion to approve the findings for this same project also passed unanimously, again with Judy Worth providing the second [timestamp: 05:00] • PLN-MAR-22-21 Turner Property 4, LLC was approved unanimously, with De Movellan providing the second [timestamp: 06:00] • PLN-MJDP-22-68 was approved unanimously with 17 conditions, with De Movellan providing the second [timestamp: 07:00] All votes were recorded as unanimous decisions, though specific vote counts and individual member positions were not documented in the available records. The meeting demonstrated consistent agreement among members on both postponement requests and project approvals, with several items requiring compliance with multiple conditions as part of their approval. ## Public Comment Four community members addressed the board during the public comment period, with traffic concerns being the predominant theme. **Kylie** [timestamp: 08:00] opened the public comment session by expressing concerns about increased neighborhood traffic resulting from the proposed development. She requested that the board consider implementing traffic management measures to address potential impacts on local residents. **Rick Wells** [timestamp: 09:00] followed with questions about accessing the traffic impact study for the development. Wells specifically requested information on how community members could obtain copies of the study and voiced concerns about potential traffic congestion near his residence. **Rock Daniels** [timestamp: 10:00] provided a contrasting perspective, expressing support for the development project. Daniels thanked both the developer and city staff for their cooperation and transparency throughout the planning process. **Gabe Hencely** [timestamp: 11:00] concluded the public comment period by requesting a comprehensive traffic study. Hencely emphasized the need for analysis that would address both existing traffic issues in the area and anticipated future problems related to the proposed development. The public comments revealed a community primarily focused on traffic-related impacts, with three of the four speakers raising concerns about vehicular congestion and traffic management. While most comments centered on traffic concerns, the session also included one voice of support for the development, highlighting community cooperation in the planning process. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during the December 15, 2022 meeting centered on the traffic impact of the Turner Property development, which drew significant community opposition. **Turner Property Development Traffic Concerns** Community members raised substantial concerns about the potential traffic impact resulting from the proposed Turner Property development. The opposition focused on fears that the development would generate increased vehicle traffic in the surrounding area, potentially creating congestion and safety issues for existing residents. The community members who spoke during the meeting specifically requested that comprehensive traffic studies be conducted to properly assess and address the potential traffic-related problems that could arise from the development. These residents emphasized the need for thorough analysis before any approval decisions were made regarding the project. The nature of the disagreement involved community members advocating for more extensive traffic impact analysis, while the development proposal appeared to move forward without what residents considered adequate traffic assessment. The community opposition centered on ensuring that proper due diligence would be conducted to evaluate how the Turner Property development might affect local traffic patterns, road capacity, and neighborhood safety. No specific outcome or resolution was indicated in the available information regarding how this contested item was ultimately addressed by the governing body. The community's request for comprehensive traffic studies represents their effort to ensure that potential negative impacts from the development would be properly evaluated and mitigated before any final decisions were made on the Turner Property project. ## PLN-MJDP-22-00058: Crestwood Montessori School Redwood Co-op School Expansion [timestamp: 03:00] The meeting addressed the expansion proposal for Crestwood Montessori School Redwood Co-op School under application PLN-MJDP-22-00058. Steve Baker served as the key speaker presenting details about the project. The discussion centered on the school's expansion plans, with particular attention given to infrastructure requirements and regulatory compliance. Two primary areas of concern emerged during the review process: • **Parking requirements** - The expansion necessitated evaluation of adequate parking capacity to accommodate the increased enrollment and staff • **Stormwater management** - Infrastructure improvements were required to handle increased runoff from the expanded facility The application underwent review for compliance with local development standards and zoning requirements. Staff analysis determined that the expansion could proceed with appropriate conditions to address the identified infrastructure needs. Following discussion of the project details and review of the proposed conditions, the application received approval. The approval included specific conditions related to both parking provision and stormwater management systems to ensure the expansion meets municipal standards and does not negatively impact surrounding properties or infrastructure. The approval allows Crestwood Montessori School to move forward with their expansion plans while ensuring compliance with local development regulations through the attached conditions of approval. ## PLN-MJDP-22-63: Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington [timestamp: 04:00] The commission reviewed a development plan for the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington project. Mat Carter served as the key speaker presenting details of the proposal during the discussion. The agenda item involved consideration of a development plan that required approval with specific conditions. A significant component of the discussion centered on a finding related to townhouse access easement requirements for the project. The commission examined the various aspects of the development proposal, including how it would integrate with surrounding properties and meet municipal development standards. The townhouse access easement represented a critical element that needed to be addressed as part of the approval process. Following the presentation and discussion of the project details, conditions, and easement considerations, the commission moved forward with their decision-making process. The development plan was ultimately approved, allowing the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington project to proceed under the established conditions. The approval represents progress for the healthcare and community facility development, with the commission satisfied that the proposal met the necessary requirements and that appropriate provisions were made for access and integration with the surrounding area. ## PLN-MAR-22-21: Turner Property 4, LLC [timestamp: 06:00] The commission discussed agenda item 3, PLN-MAR-22-21 concerning Turner Property 4, LLC. Nathan Billings served as the key speaker for this item, which involved a zone change and development plan for the Turner Property. The discussion centered on several key aspects of the proposed development, including the zone change request and associated development plan. Traffic impact considerations were a significant component of the review, with the commission examining how the proposed development would affect local transportation patterns and infrastructure. Neighborhood agreements were also addressed during the discussion, indicating that community input and stakeholder concerns had been incorporated into the planning process. These agreements likely addressed various aspects of the development to ensure compatibility with surrounding properties and community standards. The commission reviewed the technical aspects of the proposal, evaluating how the zone change would align with existing zoning regulations and comprehensive planning objectives. The development plan components were examined for compliance with applicable standards and requirements. Following the presentation and discussion of all relevant factors, including the traffic impact analysis and neighborhood agreement provisions, the commission reached a decision on the matter. The item was approved, indicating that the commission found the zone change and development plan to be appropriate and in compliance with applicable regulations and community standards. The approval of PLN-MAR-22-21 allows Turner Property 4, LLC to proceed with their proposed development under the terms and conditions established through the review process, including any stipulations related to traffic management and neighborhood compatibility measures that were incorporated into the final approval. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of PLN-MAR-22-15 Dutch Bros, LLC to January 26 - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of PLN-MAR-22-0002 Caller Properties, LLC to January 26 - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of PLN-MJDP-22-62 Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association to January 12 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-22-00058 Crestwood Montessori School Redwood School Expansion - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-22-63 Shriners Hospital with 20 conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of findings for PLN-MJDP-22-63 Shriners Hospital - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-MAR-22-21 Turner Property 4, LLC - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-22-68 with 17 conditions --- ## Full transcript Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I walk along the city streets as it's near in Christmas Day And the foreign snow is music to my ears In the rumble of the subways In the shoppers hustling by There's a melody in everything I hear It's like a Christmas serenade Street musicians and the horse drum slaves Cutting streetlights, watch the world outplay A Christmas serenade From the Santa's on a corner To the skaters in a park Every sound's another symphony To me I can hear the Christmas carols From the children in the square Singing songs of peace in perfect harmony It's like a Christmas Saturday Street musicians on the horse trunks race Color street lights watch the world and play A Christmas serenade Deep in my heart I can hear a song Wish the feeling lasted all year long It's like a Christmas serenade Street musicians and the horse-drawn sleigh On the streetlights watch the world and play A Christmas ceremony It's like a Christmas ceremony Street musicians and the most drunk slaves Colored streetlights watch the world and play A Christmas serenade Thank you. Thank you. If you're up a little late on Christmas Eve this year, and you're waiting for that pudgy person to appear, instead of the patter of tiny feet you'll hear. Because loop-de-loop, flip-flops, Santa's got a new plane. Loop-de-loop, flip-flop, fly away. Loop-de-loop, flip-flop, fly away. Loop-de-loop, flip-flop, fly away. He skydives down to the chimney with ease. Parachutes a package to the whole family. It's Santa's air special delivery to under your tree. Santa and Rudy sitting at the controls A bunch of sleepy helpers waiting back at the pole They know where they are Cause they navigate by the stars Cause loopy loopy flip-flop Sam's got a airplane Loopy loopy flip-flop by way Loopy loopy flip-flop by way Loopy loopy flip-flop by way Loopy loopy flip-flop by way Nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie nookie no Thank you. All right, you chipmunks. Ready to sing your song? I'll say we are. Yeah, let's sing it now. Okay, Simon. Okay. Okay, Theodore. Okay. Okay, Alvin. Alvin. Alvin! Okay! Christmas, Christmas time is near. Time for toy and time for cheer. We've been good, but we can't laugh Hurry Christmas, hurry fast Want a plane that moves the loo Me, I want a hula hoop We can hardly stand the way Please Christmas, don't be late Okay, fellas, get ready. That was very good, Simon. Naturally. Very good, Theodore. Alvin, you were a little flat. Watch it, Alvin. Alvin. Alvin! Okay. Want a plane that looms the loo? I still want a hula hoop. We can hardly stand the wait. Please, Christmas, don't be late. We can hardly stand the wait Please, Christmas, don't be late Very good, boys. Let's sing it again. No, that's enough. Let's not overdo it. What do you mean overdo it? We want to sing it again. Now, wait a minute, boys. Yes, great. Why can't we sing it again? Alvin, cut that down. Wait a second. Just a minute. Simon, we're going to come down. Oh, you better watch out, you better not cry, better not pout, I'm telling you why. Santa Claus is coming to town. He's making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice. Santa Claus is coming to town. He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good for goodness sake Oh, you better watch out You better not cry You better not pout I'm telling you why Santa Claus is coming to town guitar solo you believe they're gonna build a toy land all around the christmas tree oh you better watch out you better not cry better not pout i'm telling you why santa claus is coming to town santa claus is coming I'm sorry. Cause I'm older now, but not done hoping The twinkling of the lights, the Santa Carols fill the hustle Old St. Nick has taken flight with a heart on board, so please be careful Each year I ask for many different things But now I know what my heart wants you to bring So please just fall in love with me This Christmas There's nothing else that I will need This Christmas Won't be wrapped under a tree I want something to last forever So kiss me on this cold December night A tree that smells of pine A house that's filled with joy and laughter The mist of toast I stand in line Loneliness is what I capture Oh, but this evening can be a holy night It's cozy on up by the fireplace And in those Christmas lights So please just fall in love with me This Christmas There's nothing else that you and me This Christmas I won't be wrapped under a tree I watched it last forever So kiss me on this cold December night I'm here. I want it to last forever Cause I don't want to be alone tonight I'll wear you like a Christmas sweater While I paddle to the mistletoe tonight I want it to last forever So kiss me on this cold December night They call that season to give in I'm here, yours for the taking They call it the season of giving I'm here, I'm yours Mama's in the kitchen Christmas on the stove Daddy's in the woodshed With axe and overcoat Everybody's helping To place and trim the tree The picture's almost perfect It's only missing me But I'm coming home for Christmas Save a place for me I'll arrive before St. Nicholas Place his gifts beneath the tree Leave a candle burning And a key underneath the man I'm coming home for Christmas You can count on that Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Item two, we do not have any minutes to approve, so we're going to move forward to agenda item three, postponements and withdrawals. Yes, sir. Hi, good afternoon, everyone. I'm Adam Bender with CMW. I'm representing Dutch Bros. This item is at the top of page four of your agenda. Item 1, PLN MAR-22-15 Dutch Bros. LLC. We would like to request a postponement for one month, which would put us on the agenda for January 26th. We've been exploring some other options in light of the staff recommendation on this. And through that, we've concluded that we do want to move forward with the zone change, We're just not ready yet. Okay. Thank you. Any commission members? Glad to speak. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience? Okay. We'll bring it back. You ready to postpone it? Yes, we'll take a motion for the one-month postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement to January the 26th, 23 of PLNMAR 2215. Thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Barstale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett here on behalf of Color Properties LLC on page seven. That's item three, color properties, LLC. PLN MAR 2200021. We'd like to request a one-month postponement to that same meeting, the January 26th. We had a continuance. We requested a continuance during the zoning committee meeting, so you're just following up with that. Okay. Thank you. Does any commission member have any questions or concerns? for this postponement. Anyone in the audience? Seeing none, the floor is open for a motion for a one-month postponement. Mr. Chair, I move for a one-month postponement to January 26th of PLNMAR 2221 Collar Properties, LLC. Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn in your agenda to page two, item B, PLNMJDP 22-62, to Hoover Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association, the Fountains. We would request a postponement to the January 12th hearing. We've still got some issues we're working out with our clients on this. Okay. So we have a request for the January 12th meeting. Any questions? I've got one question. Yes. Is that the subdivision hearing? Is zoning staff going to be available? Sir, this is a subdivision item that was postponed to this meeting. That makes sense, okay. Thank you, Mr. Minkler. Thank you. Okay, anyone in the audience? I have to speak. Seeing none, the floor is open for your motion. Yes, Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 2262 to the January of the 12th, 23 meeting. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Mr. DeMovilland. Any further discussion? If not, please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. All right, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Charlotte McCoy. I'm an attorney for the applicant on the case number four on your agenda at number nine. IDCP Athens South LLC on PLN MAR 22-00023 and PLN MJDP-22-0073. The applicant would like to move for a postponement to the January 12th meeting. Okay. Commission members, Mr. Penn. Can you give us a little reason for why you're postponing? Yes, the staff had asked for some additional information and the subcommittees during the hearings. We're in the process of gathering it. We hope to have it ready in time to file for today, but need a few more days. So you're going to be meeting with the staff between now and the 12th? We'll be providing the additional information, yes. But will that be just, will you be meeting with them or just sending something in? I believe we'll be sending something in. I would really encourage you to meet with them. Okay. I think that would help everybody involved. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions from the commission? Okay, seeing none. Is anyone in the audience? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Actually, I just have a question for clarification. I'm Julie Muth Goodman, 4998 8th and Spoonsboro Road. I am opposed and I'm just wondering on the 12th, is that actually a public hearing as well or is it the 26th the usual public hearing? It's a public hearing on the 12th. As well? Yes. All right, thank you. And will all the information that they supply, will that be made available to all of the neighbors? Because we haven't received anything today. All information will be posted on the Citizen Portal or the Acela website. All information that has been supplied to the staff has been posted on that website as well. All right, excellent, thank you. Okay, you're welcome. Okay, thank you. I've seen any other questions, so we have a request for a postponement to this agenda item to January 12th. Floor is open for a motion. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLNMAR 22-23 to our January 12, 2023 meeting. Thank you, and we have a second by Mr. DeMovila. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Are you going to do page 10? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 2273 to our January 12, 2023 meeting. Thank you. Second. Second by Mr. DeMovillen. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We got any other postponements or withdrawals? Let's see. Okay, not seeing any, so next should be first page. Development plans, PLN MJDP 22-58. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item on your agenda does begin on the bottom of page one, Major Development Plan 2258, Crestwood Montessori School, also known as the Redwood Co-op School. This is a final development plan on what is now known as the Redwood Co-op School, the old Montessori site here. Here is the frontage, and I'm suddenly drawing a blank on that street. Thank you, yes. But this is an expansion of the existing school on this site, and they are, in essence, adding this new building, proposing to add this new building at the rear. It is going to be over 7,000 square feet, 7,720 square foot building, two stories. These are existing structures on the site, along with existing parking, playground areas. And again, you can see the long rectangular shape of the property with the access here in the existing access. Now, they went to the Board of Adjustment this week, which is why they postponed last week to come before you today, because they needed Board of Adjustment approval of the conditional use, which has to be denoted on the final development plan. So this kind of, everybody's schedule kind of fell together in a very fortunate way. in terms of timing. So last week they postponed to this hearing. And again, this is the purpose, the approval of the addition of this new building. Now this, again, they went to the Board of Adjustment, but there's been a development plan on this property for many years. So they had to amend their final development plan as well. Now, you can see there are conditions on page two with this. The addition, by the way, will bring the site up to over 27,000 square feet of buildings on the site. They added some additional parking on this site. However, if you look at the conditions, they did not address the dimension of the existing structure, playground materials. Now, this is a rendering, but on the plan, they still need to pry dimensions. That's just an Article 21 requirement, and it's also a way we follow the math. Along with the geotechnical study needs to be performed. That needs to be denoted clearly on the plan. staff's understanding that geotechnical study has been done. The purpose for that is there's a large sinkhole in this area. It extends into these lots as well, where there's some existing single family homes, but a very large sinkhole exists just off the property. And they're in close enough proximity that we want, we're requiring a geotechnical study be done. Again, they'll need to denote board of adjustment approval of the conditional use. The final condition, condition 16 says, discuss the building conflict with the existing stormwater facility. Well, there is a stormwater facility right through here. They're gonna have to move it. That can be a resolved condition because when they wanna start building this new building, one of the first things they're gonna have to do is move that stormwater facility. And of course, that'll be part of the improvement plans and construction plans that they submit for approval to engineering as well as building inspection. So they'll move that and they can build the building. So again, that was just an issue that we raised early on in the review process, make sure everyone was on the same page. So staff is recommending approval of the plan. Be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff in the commission? Okay, and I see any. Thank you, sir. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Steve Baker. I'm with Midwest Engineering. This is our plan that you see here. And I just want to thank the staff for helping us sort through the Board of Adjustment and getting us on this agenda to be able to be before you today. All the items that Tom's mentioned I think we're in agreement with. The geotechnical study has been completed. We've uploaded a copy of that study to the online application, But we do need to share that, I guess, with Division of Engineering and other departments that need to see it. And the other items we'll be glad to address before certification. So if you have any questions for me, I'd be glad to try to answer them. Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Not seeing any. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission. The floor is open for a motion. Yes, Mr. Mickler. I have a motion that we approve the development plan for PLNMJDP 22-00058 Crestwood Montessori School Redwood Co-op School Expansion. Can we have a motion and a second by Mr. Beall? Any further discussion to that motion? If none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Get my paperwork back together. Next up, staff, it's all you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we're moving on to the bottom of page two, and then on the top of page three where you will see the conditions associated with this major development plan, 22-63, the Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple Association of Lexington property. And you should have a light blue revised handout for this particular development plan. This is property out on Harrodsburg Road at this location, Palomar Boulevard. This is Syringa as it currently stubs into the property. The fountains at the intersection of Manowar and Harrisburg Road are the immediately adjacent property. This, of course, is a fairly recent zone change. Had a preliminary plan go through. Had some conditions placed on it at the Urban County Council. And now they have brought back to you the final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan for this area. You can see this is B3 area. This is the commercial area, the B3 portion of the property. It's approximately 7.5, 7.6 acres here. We have in the rear the R3 portion of the property. You can see they're proposing single-family homes here and here and then townhouses. So we've got a mix of housing. These are all single-family homes. As you know, one's detached, one is attached. The B3 portion, with their outlots, along with these rectangular, more spec-oriented buildings, they total 47,000-plus square feet in total commercial at this time on this particular plan. As you know, plans can be amended, and we may see some changes in the future. Now, they're showing two drive-throughs for these. This appears to be a bank, credit union-type drive-through. This is more of a traditional drive-through that curls through this location. You may recall there was a lot of discussion about access, the right in, right out. There was a waiver required. You can see they're proposing the design at this location. That design will be reviewed by your traffic engineering division along with District 7 to be sure that everyone agrees on the appropriate design for that right in, right out. And again, because of the high amount of traffic, because of the turning conflicts and things like that that exist, it's important that that design, they get that design correct. In addition, you can see, and I know you will recall this discussion, This is an access basement that continues from the fountains through the B3 portion, curls up, and connects to the Syringa Drive extension. I know you all recall that that was a big discussion item and very important to maintain connectivity in this development with both developments and with the neighborhood as well. Excuse me. The townhouses in this portion of the development will be served by an access easement. That is the proposal. These, along with the single-family homes, all have their frontage on what will be a dedicated public street. This, oops, oops, oops, there we go, big thumb. This is an access easement as well that will curl up through here. One aspect of that, approval of that, is that there will be traffic calming on that access easement to slow traffic down as it moves through this commercial area. Now, they haven't requested a finding on that particular access easement at that time. And they can do that, and they'll be back to you, and they will ask you to make that finding, because B3 does have a frontage requirement. And if you look at how they're proposing to lot this, the outlots have no problem with frontage. That's Harrisburg Road. This access easement service road will provide the frontage for this commercial area. You can see the pedestrian little plaza area, the pedestrian connections, the heavy landscaping. All this grew out of the initial zone change, out of the initial discussions on this property. Now, one issue that was important, several, one of which is enhanced landscaping on Harrisburg Road. They added a detail that matches what was done on Ethington and Ethington. Additional, more enhanced, it's above and beyond Article 18. It's corridor landscaping. They're proposing the same here. We want to be sure that's denoted in the notes and not just a detail so it's clear that they're going to develop and install the landscaping in accordance with that detail. We had a lot of discussion about the connection and the phasing of the entire development in terms of infrastructure and particularly the construction of this connection, the service drive connection. One of the recommendations on this plan is that during phase one development of the entire site, that be constructed, that be connected. That's one important component that staff felt was extremely important. Now, in conversations with the applicant, and they can elaborate on this, this site will be developed in phases, but due to construction issues, due to drainage, and you can see detention here, and then there's detention over here. There's a break on this property. It drains in different directions. They're gonna grade the entire property in phase one, but the commercial at this time is gonna be the driver, and they're gonna, this will be your primary phase one. The residential, including the completion of Syringa and the cul-de-sac, will be the second phase. However, as I mentioned, due to the site concerns with drainage, they're going to grade the site during phase one. They will phase other things like sanitary sewer, the street. They'll phase those sorts of things as appropriate with the R3 portion of the development. That was one of the concerns staff had. We felt it was important that the Planning Commission hear their plans and how they intended to phase this development. There was one issue about document compliance with Note 10 prior to certification. Oh, again, big old thumbs. Keep hitting on. That is something we've been doing frequently on a lot of developments over the years along arterials, And that is we ask that they submit renderings, architectural renderings of the stores, the commercial structures that face the arterial. And that they develop substantially in conformance with those. That's all that is. We did that again. We've done that with Palomar, Ethington, and they just have to submit that. We file them. They're reviewed when they come in for a building permit to ensure that they're complying with those. As I mentioned, they're gonna have to come back. They may need a finding on this particular access easement. You do have before you today, this little report on a finding for the townhouse access easement in the residential R3 area. Again, these seven townhouses will be served solely by an access easement. And it's only gonna be 25 feet wide, a little narrow. It's going to have sidewalks on both sides. So they're going to have the pedestrian facilities in place. The primary rationale is, as I mentioned, the topography, the challenges of the site, and then in order to get additional density, as well as providing the townhouses, which is, you know, again, they're mixing up their housing types, which is a positive. These are issues that in order to have this function and meet the detention requirements, they need an access easement. Staff has reviewed that and we've reviewed it along with your traffic engineering as well. We are recommending that you make a finding for the access easement subject to three conditions. One is that, pardon me, two conditions. Actually, two conditions. Construction standards of the access shall be the approval of the Division of Engineering. That has more to do with the depth of the pavement. This is going to be a small HOA. They're going to have a lot of maintenance issues already with their open space, and the access easement is just another expense. So we'd like to see that access easement built as well as it can be to avoid problems down the road. Along with that, the vision of fire is approval of restricted parking on that access easement so that emergency vehicles can get through. Because I mentioned it's relatively narrow with that. So again, they're requesting a finding on the access easement. Staff is recommending that you do make that finding. Staff is also recommending approval of the overall plan to you at this time. and be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Penn? Mr. Martin, on the access easement, show me exactly where that is. It's right through here and then up through there. These units, Mr. Penn, that you see here, they front on it. Okay. The way this color up is, you can't really see it very well. The reason I'm asking what I'm asking, I do it on most all access easements. If it's not built to public standards, then the Homeowner Association has to keep it. Yes, sir. Are we helping ourselves or hurting ourselves by saying that they have to build it to public standards? By not saying they have to build it to public standards? Well, there's a lot of things that go into that. One is, for instance, do they need curb and gutter on an access easement? They may or may not. Curb and gutter quite often have more of a stormwater function. They do help separate. And then pavement width and depth, that's generally on access easements our primary concern, so that they don't wear out too soon. That's the standard that we often are more concerned with with an access easement. So that's the reason for this? That's the reason for the condition. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, Your Honor. Well, I've got a couple questions. First, though, I'm going to make a note that the development plan didn't make it into Excella, so it's a little bit hard to see all the notes all the way up there. Granicus. Oh, Granicus, sorry. Granicus. Oh, yeah. Sorry, I used the wrong. There's so many names here. So my first question is just a little bit about the, to understand a little bit about the corridor design guidelines here. One of the conditions is to denote, on the revised conditions, is to denote the enhanced screening along Harrodsburg Road. I guess I have two questions with that. One is, do we not want, I mean, I would think we would want commercial to be visible along our streets. What kind of screening requirement? The trees tend to be spaced at 30 or 40 feet, depending on which standard we use. And then there's shrubs required. We've used a berm in the past, but along Harrodsburg Road, that's proven unnecessary. So they'll be visible. They're still going to sit up, but the screening just softens that edge along here. So it's lower? It is. For the most part? Okay. And then this is just almost just an example for my curiosity. I know this plan was submitted prior to the new parking regulations. Yes. But those buildings would now need to be configured differently. Is that correct? in future applications? If they come in with an amendment, and that's very, very possible on a commercial development in this area, they would have to meet the new standards depending on the scope of the amendment. And that's another reason why we want the enhanced landscaping as well because, again, the parking and DUA that they're presenting to the arterial. And then on the original conditions, there was a condition to discuss sidewalk improvements. And then that's been taken. They're showing them on the development plan now. I don't know if they're visible on this color up, but on the development plan that they submitted for status review, they show a sidewalk facility along Herotspur Road. But there's... Yeah, okay. And then in regards to the sidewalk, I just was curious with the interface of that right in, because I know when cars sort of are merging in, that can be a conflict point if there's not enough deflection or separation on the sidewalk. Has that been looked at? It has. And, again, they're submitting this, and they believe that this will function. They copied from the Park Hills, do you recall the Park Hills commercial on Manowar, and that very same issue with the pedestrians. They're attempting to address it in the same fashion, but it'll be reviewed by our people to make sure that it will function safely in that regard. Okay, and then my last question is just because I can't read the notes myself, what was the compliance with Note 10? That is the renderings for the architectural features that we always ask for. We're legally constrained about how much we can get architecturally. But because we have those concerns, we ask that they submit renderings and then substantially comply with those renderings. And we're looking for a mix of materials and hoping that they'll break them up and that sort of thing. Thank you. Questions? Any further questions? Thank you, Tom. Applicant? Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. I've gone through the conditions and And let's see, there's 20 total and also the two conditions for the findings. And we're in agreement with these conditions and request your approval. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, sir. Does anyone in the audience like to speak on this particular agenda item? Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission for a motion. Just remember we have the revised staff recommendations and also a motion for the findings. Mr. Demolvin. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2263, Shriners Hospital with the 20 conditions. We have a second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the findings for PLM-MJDP-2263, Shriners Hospital. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus when it comes available. Okay. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Okay, that's it. If I'm following correctly, put us on page five of the agenda. It's PLN MAR 22-21, Turner Properties for LLC. And we have revised staff recommendations for this as well. Chairman Forrester, this item does qualify for the abbreviated hearing. So I'll just ask today if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this case in opposition. Okay. Okay. My name is Kylie. I live in Melrose Oak Park. It's the neighborhood adjacent to the Turner Complex, and we have an access point into the complex. So I'll preface by saying I'm excited about the potential the complex will bring for our neighborhood, but I'm concerned about increased neighborhood traffic if that gate is to stay open. I know Meadowthorpe had a similar concern and was able to get a legal plan note to keep that gate closed for emergency purposes only. And so I was curious if something similar could be arranged for our neighborhood or what the intended plan was for that gate. It's underneath the Main Street Bridge. I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm sure the attorney, the representative for the applicant would be able to address that in the present. Would you address it in your presentation? Whenever you will. Okay. And then secondly, if it's not already being looked at, the access point on Main Street is creating just a little bit of traffic safety concerns right now with the increased traffic turning into the complex. if people are turning into the complex and into Melrose at the same time, they can become nose to nose and then one car can't see past the other. And I already witnessed like an incident where a car almost got hit because of that. So a stoplight might be necessary in that intersection now. I think the applicant and our staff will address both of those points in presentations today. I'll just ask if anyone is in opposition. then we'll have a full public hearing. If there's no one in opposition, then we can have an abbreviated hearing. That doesn't mean you don't get to speak. Just maybe if you have questions or you're in support, that's fine. I want to stay within the format. Okay. Okay, so we'll let the staff prepare an abbreviated hearing, and then the applicant will make a presentation, and then we'll open it up for public comments. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. So I will attempt to keep this abbreviated. So this request is PLN MAR 2221. This is a request by Turner Property 4 LLC. And this is requesting a zone change for approximately 27 acres from light industrial, high-density apartment, neighborhood business zones to the brand-new PUD 3 zones. You'll recall over the past couple months, you worked with a zoning ordinance text amendment to create this new zone, which essentially would afford this sort of combination of light industrial and commercial mixed-use kind of development. That passed the Planning Commission as well as Council, and so this is the first application under the new zone. This is for property at 125 Turner Commons Way and 1409 North Forbes Road, and the intent behind it is to establish a mixed-use industrial development. So here, the subject properties are shown in white. It is two parcels. So just for reference, here is West Main Street as it heads out of town, becomes Lee's Town Road. North Forbes circles around the western portion of the site, as well as the railroad, which serves as kind of the eastern ridge or the eastern spine of the development. The subject properties are both currently split zoned. The 125 Turner Commons parcel is primarily light industrial with a small portion of split zoning near the roadway with commercial. The property at 1409 North Forbes Road has a split of commercial and residential zoning currently. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can see there's a wide variety of land uses. These are two rather large parcels in total, so they abut kind of a wide variety of uses. We've got commercial along West Main Street here, including some retail, some auto service uses, with a healthy amount of residential in the vicinity. As was mentioned previously, there's residential to the south on the other side of West Main, as well as the Meadowthorpe neighborhood to the west and a manufactured home, mobile home park across the railroad from the subject properties. There's also some existing industrial development nearby as well. So here's the aerial view of the subject properties. Historically, the larger parcel was used as a warehousing space. You can see the remnants of it in the aerial photo. However, they have since been cleared. The property has mainly been used as storage for equipment and RVs. In the meantime, the parcel adjacent to it contains an existing office building. That building is proposed to be retained with this request. From this area, you can see that the site has several existing access points. There is the main access point, which is located just across the viaduct here. There is also, as was previously stated, an access point that connects to the neighborhood underneath it, as well as an access point that will connect to North Forbes Road here. In conversations with the Neighborhood Association, one of the recurring themes that was brought up was the concern with how this development is going to impact kind of this North Forbes Road area. So the applicant has provided a traffic impact study in conjunction with this request that kind of speaks to the immediate impacts. We've got our transportation staff here that can kind of speak to that. In addition, there is a transportation study planned for the Forbes Road area that will provide not only multimodal information, but also vehicular examination of what changes will need to be made to that roadway in the future to accommodate that future growth. Transportation staff can speak to that concern as well. So just as a quick look, so this is the primary access to the site as you're coming off the viaduct from West Main Street. So this is the Turner Commons Way. Here is the North Forbes Road access. It currently leads to the building here as well as existing parking areas. And then finally, this is the access that connects under the viaduct that connects to the residential areas. So as far as place type and development type, they've identified this as a second tier urban and a medium density non-residential mixed use. Staff agrees that both of these can be appropriate dislocation. The PUD 3 is not a recommended place type within this, or recommended zone for this place type, simply because it was invented after this was published. Staff agrees that the zone, place type, and development type can be appropriate for this request. Here we have a color-up showing the development plan for the property, just to orient yourself once again. Here we have West Main Street as you're heading out of town, North Forbes Road, as well as the Railroad. There's several different colors on this map. Essentially, there's three kind of main components to the development. There's a commercial component shown in red. This is a mix of retail, commercial, office uses oriented not only towards this particular development, but also for serving the surrounding area. Near the center of the site, we've got 25 attached townhome units located centrally with access to the commercial as well as the community green space in the middle. Located further back in the development, we've got with the purple color. This is industrial flex space and commercial space located to serve as a buffer, really, between the commercial and residential components to serve as a buffer from there to the industrial that lies north of the site. Included in kind of one of the core components of this site is this sort of linear park and green space that provides connectivity but also provides a buffer from the adjacent Meadowthorpe neighborhood. Parking for this request, this is under the new parking ordinance, so there is no minimum parking requirements for the development. However, they are required, the applicant is required to provide a parking demand mitigation study that examines the amount of parking being generated by the uses and what they are doing to attempt to mitigate that. The applicant, based on the uses, have provided a number of spaces. 674 total is what they are looking at. They are also looking to mitigate the number of spaces through improved public transportation, live-work environment, and some other means. This is generally in line with what they predicted the number of total spaces required would be. They are providing slightly above that, but they want to basically ensure that there isn't any spillover traffic from this development moving towards the adjacent neighborhoods. This plan meets several goals within the comprehensive plan, including utilizing underutilized properties within the infill and redevelopment area, developing around these corridors, and providing basically a larger, more expansive employment opportunities through this expanded zoning. The PUD 3 zone does have several unique kind of characteristics or requirements that have to be met. There was requirements regarding the size of the property, the site development constraints. There was locational requirements as well as a requirement to provide architectural detail relating to their proposed design. There was some concerns prior to this meeting with the amount of information provided regarding the architectural detail. The applicant has since provided new information and staff feels that all requirements for the PUD 3 can be met with this request. Just a kind of overview of some of the architectural information. This was a part of the architectural packet, but just to reorient yourselves again, once again, this is West Main Street as you head out of town, North Forbes Road here. This is just to sort of give you an idea of how this development is laid out. With the commercial and office portions closest to the roadway, residential located in the middle, and then the industrial flex space to the rear. All of this is being connected with pedestrian walkways, pedestrian connectivity, centralized parking, as well as a dramatic increase in the amount of green space and tree canopy coverage. This is a picture of a graphic provided showing the residential component. This request has to comply with the multifamily design standards. Staff find that it does. These residential units are oriented towards the main road, have eyes on the open space. and are activated at pedestrian level. Here we have some views of the commercial aspects of it. Once again, this is a development that is emphasizing mixed use, is emphasizing open space, and emphasizing connectivity. So staff finds that it is in agreement with those various aspects of the comprehensive plan and the goals and policies included with them. So overall, staff is recommending approval of this request. We find that it meets the comprehensive plan goals and objectives that relate to encouraging redevelopment, encouraging the creation of jobs, and encouraging the activation of our corridors. They are in line with the goals and early policies, which call for creating these sort of neighborhood amenities, providing these mixing of uses, and doing so in an environmentally sensitive manner. Finally, we find that this is in line with the requirements for site design, transportation, as well as green space and environmental health. and so we are recommending approval. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have regarding the zoning at this time. Mr. Martin will be on to speak directly after to address some of the development plan aspects of the site. Any questions? Staff? Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, we have on a handout for you on this green, lovely green color revised conditions on this development plan. As Daniel explained, of course, we have Main Street in this location, the commercial metaphor, all up in here. This is North Forbes Road. Again, the viaduct is here, the railroad, and that long linear rectangular piece. And this relationship, of course, is the defining characteristics of this site. They are proposing a private street, as you can see. provide a spine for this development. We have, as Daniel described, we have various mixed-use commercial developments, distillery, winery-type use. We have business proposed uses, office buildings in this area, the flex space that he mentions back through here. And these are the townhouses, the residential component of the development. Again, the parking, you can see, is spaced, proposed to be landscaped. Its exposure is limited to the street that's being proposed. This is the largest parking lot to serve the development, and it does have access to Turner Way, the street in this location, as well as access out here to Main Street. Of course, that's under the viaduct as well. They have laid this, oh, here's the pond feature, a lot of green space. There's a pedestrian facility along this green space in this location. This amended plan addressed a lot of concerns that were present at your committee meeting, which was just due to a lack of specific information. They had that information. It just wasn't on the plan. So they brought it forward. They put it on the plan. For instance, we said, well, you've got to tell us some uses. Well, that was in their traffic study. That's how they justified their parking. So those uses were new. but we needed that on the plan. That's a requirement, along with dimensions, things like that. So they did a good job. They really cleaned up the plan and addressed those types of conditions that were the rationale behind the original postponement recommendation. They are proposing over 170,000 total square feet of development in this proposal. As Daniel mentioned, there's over 600 parking spaces being proposed. But again, as part of the PUD3, they developed a lot of their, you know, they developed and had approved their own standards. There's a packet that I think was loaded into the computer for you to view. And they've done a good job of addressing the layout components of that, the relationship of the buildings, the parking, the open space, tremendous amount of open space. One of the initial concerns that we had was you've got to identify some of these spaces. A lot of information on this plan, and those of you on the subdivision committee may recall that the original plan was out of scale. That was due to reproduction issues, and that happens. They corrected that. But again, we needed to know exactly what are these areas. So they've identified tennis courts, outdoor open space, plaza areas, that sort of thing. All that's very important. It's very important to address their own standards, though, for laying this property out, the use of open space, amenities. And, of course, it also figures into stormwater calculations as well. For instance, this area up here is going to have a dog park. That wasn't clear at first, but this is a nice little recreational area here. It's kind of out of the way. They're putting it to a nice green space use. There are amenities associated here, and there's patios and open space also associated with the distillery. And again, this is virtually a long linear park for that development. Excuse me. The access that's been talked about briefly, of course, this is in essence a private street that they're building through here. And then they're going to build this access as well out to North Forbes Road. That's yet to be named, but it's an access road. So they're going to have two accesses into that. And that's important, again, not just for traffic distribution, but for public safety access, for fire and ambulance and that sort of thing to serve this development, particularly a large commercial development of this type. It is important to have those connections and those access points. There is one thing that we have added on the back of this page. We've stated that they will comply. They need to denote that clearly. They have a note that alludes to that. We tend to like planning. We tend to like declarative statements, you know, very clear what people need to do. And one of the things they need to do is comply with their own standards. Now, this plan, of course, demonstrates the open space, the layout, that they're meeting the PUD3 standards. But they also have architectural standards that were shown on Daniel's exhibit when he showed the renderings. Because that's another part of their vision. Another part of what they want to do is control the materials and the look of the buildings in this development. which I'm certainly, I know they'll be happy to elaborate with you on how they came up with that. With that, we want that clearly denoted. That triggers our review. That triggers building inspection's review. They're going to look to see that those things are being met when they pull their permits. With that, we also have recommended that they denote that the Metathorpe neighborhood shall be notified of any plan amendment prior to such amended plan being filed with the Division of Planning. We want them to go talk to the neighborhood first and then submit their amendment should this plan need to be amended. Most of them do at one time or the other. We won't know until that happens. With that, your staff is recommending approval of this development plan and we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Deuce. Mr. Martin, thank you so much. Would the neighborhood across Main Street, which also has an access point to this new development, would they also have a notification requirement? We can certainly add that. It's not a condition at this time. Okay. I think if we're making a condition for Meadowthorpe, which certainly is a good thing because it goes into that neighborhood, I think we need to be fair and treat all affected neighborhoods that are connected by access points. Thank you. Excellent suggestion. Mr. Mickler. Yeah, I have a question and also just a comment, too. My eyesight's not quite good enough for this. I really can't read the notes on it. My question is on that one building that is at the intersection of Turner Commons and Main Street. Yeah, right there. The lower, yes. The orientation of that building appears to be facing the parking lot with its back to the intersection of Main Street and Turner Commons. And its back is kind of at an angle there. Was that orientation discussed with the applicant or among staff? It was. It was discussed at the subdivision committee as well. And it has to do, first of all, of course, there's the viaduct. so there's no orientation to the public that's driving over the viaduct. And also it's their attempt to utilize that space efficiently with that proposed square footage. And I'm certainly, I know they can elaborate on their thought process with that as well. So the viaduct starts right there at that intersection of Turner Comets, right? look at the aerial to be absolutely sure but because it starts it starts early as you're coming across the railroad. Turner Commons though intersects directly to Main, Lee's Town Main Street right? I guess it's Main Street until Forbes is that what it is? Is there Okay. So basically because it is considered not visible enough to merit requiring the orientation to be towards the street, is that the staff's opinion? Yes. And again, it's keeping with their own adopted standards that were in the PUD3 trying to. Thank you, Tom. I got a question, Tom. I wasn't in subdivision. At the end of Turner Commons, the very back of the property, is there vehicular access or pedestrian access into the park in any of this long strip we're seeing? The vehicular access will be stopped at the rear, but there is the ability to continue pedestrian access through that industrial section to the public park that's in the rear. That was an item of discussion as well so that the public could move from this development as well as from the neighborhood to these amenities along a pedestrian facility. Thank you. And they're not allowed to wake up the tobacco that used to sleep there. Not anymore, I know, Mr. Penn. You all may recall there used to be a bulletin board on New Circle Road that said, shh, tobacco asleep. It's more grubber than left. It's moved on. Okay, any more questions for staff at this moment? Not seeing any, thank you. Okay, Mr. Billings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm a principal at Billings Law Firm here in Lexington, and it's my pleasure today to represent Turner Property 4 and Darren Turner, who's with us, also his staff, Melissa Horn. This project is also joined with Palmer Engineering, Brian Ward, and his staff is here today. And Stan Harvey with Lord Act Sergeant has also helped significantly with this project. My attempt today will be to actually sort of do an abbreviated presentation. I think the reason is we have worked for about 18 months, mostly with the Metathorpe Neighborhood Association, before we ever came to staff, or much less to the Planning Commission, to begin addressing concerns, getting input and feedback on what we're here today about. So this has been a long process. One of my early hearings, I remember Mr. Penn telling me when I represented the Neighborhood Association, or maybe it was the developer or both of us, that we should sit down and talk about this before we came back. And dare say, I think that this hearing today is a result of a process like that. If you could put my, is this up there? Here we go. Instead of going through my typical presentation today, because of the fact that staff has done an excellent job going through both the zone change recommendation for approval and the revised staff report recommending approval of development plan, I want to state that we are in agreement with all of staff recommendations on the zone change and their findings or proposed findings. And we are in agreement with all of the staff recommendations on the development plan with the additional note, per Mr. Davis's question, that the Melrose Oak Park Neighborhood Association also received notice for any change to the plan. And so that would otherwise we're in total agreement with staff report with that note as well. What I wanted to do in lieu of going through perhaps all of the typical things I would talk about, like the legal standards, is talk about traffic real quick. Because that's probably been one of the biggest concerns for this project. We're not going to resolve those in the zone change. It's probably not appropriate to vote up or down on a zone change based upon the traffic issues that are off-site. But I think it's relevant to make sure that we address those publicly and share with the planning commission the discussions we've had with the neighborhood and the promises we've made. And also then to tell you about private agreements we have, not because they're enforceable by you all, but to show you the good faith efforts we've made and why we're here today without opposition. First is, this is the Newtown. I'm sorry, this is not Newtown. This is the North Forbes Road intersection heading south towards Main Street, Lee's Town. This light right here, our traffic study found this light needs some adjustments in the process. And we have reached out to District 7, and they will eventually work through the city. Our hope is to add a left-hand designated turn light here, as well as to adjust the timing. Also to address the striping here for left-hand turn lines and put no blocking signs across the road here for the side access road. We're not in control of that because it's off-site, but we believe because of relationships we have, we can bring impact to those improvements being made at this. Additionally, staff told you there's a much larger study going on. The RFP will be issued this coming spring from Virginia Avenue at the UK all the way through Forbes Road, and the city has now agreed to expand that study north of the Turner Commons entrance, which will include bicycle, pedestrian, as well as other traffic improvements. I don't know the full scope of that RFP, but we think that's beneficial to the project and, more importantly, to the two neighborhoods that are potentially impacted by this. The second intersection I want to talk about is two pictures. Staff has a similar one. This picture, to my right here, this is heading back east into downtown. To my left, this is heading west to Leastown Road. To the top of the picture here, this is the entrance to Turner Commons. And while you can't see it, to what would be the bottom right of this corner would be the opposite corner and to Clyde Street, which is the Melrose Oak Park subdivision. This is looking the opposite direction. This is Clyde Street down here to my bottom left. And this is, I think, the intersection that someone from the public asked a question about before we went into the abbreviated hearing. We are not in control of this site, but we are mindful that this site is going to have or already is being traffic impacted. It is our suggestion, and this needs to have input from the neighborhoods because we're not in control of this, that two things should occur and perhaps others. The first one is from this intersection from Clyde Street, it should be a right-hand turnout only. There should be no left-hand turn to head west onto Main Street. Similarly, on the Turner Commons way, it should be a right-hand turnout. Now, having said that, we have provided stacking for a left-hand turn out of Turner Commons Way that people could turn left out of Turner Commons to head Main Street to make sure that when that traffic does stack, there is adequate stacking available. But from a long-term traffic improvement situation, we're suggesting that if the neighborhoods want to discuss it with the city, we'll support this, is to do right-hand turn lanes out of both of these. This would reduce traffic for people turning on Clyde Street going left or Turner Commons Street, Turner Commons going left from backing the traffic up at that. Similarly, this would also provide a way for people in the Oak Park, Melrose neighborhood to go under the bridge, come around Turner Commons and take a right on our Main Street, which is a much safer turn for them to do. There is a admitted slight inconvenience that they have to go under the bridge to do that, but at the same time they no longer have to turn left across this Main Street intersection, which at certain times of the day, can back up. Again, that's off our site. We're not in control of that, but we support that, but we're not going to unilaterally ask the city or the state to make those improvements without the neighborhood being involved on those things. And that answers, I think, implicitly the question someone asked, is the underpass under Main Street going to remain open? And the answer is yes. It is one of the three ways out of the development. The first one is the primary entrance here on Turner Commons Way. The second one is, I don't have a picture of it my slideshow here, but it was on the development plan at Forbes Road and the new road. You may know today the property at 1409 Forbes that's here has a access drive to come in the property. This is a new road that's already been created under the existing zoning that we're allowed to do. And so it now connects all the way through to Forbes Road to provide a second means of ingress and egress. And the third one is out under the bridge here. Now, one of the reasons why there's three entrances here is that in discussions with the neighborhood early on, to them, there are two back gates into the property, one shown on this plan right here and one farther back, closer to New Circle Road. The neighborhood expressed concern that they did not want traffic from the development coming in and out of those gates. And so Mr. Turner said, absolutely, we'll support you with that. While generally, we know the city encourages and wants connectivity, and generally, connectivity is a good idea. There are times, like here, where connectivity is not necessarily the best thing for the neighborhood. And we joined with the neighborhood and said, we agree, we have locked those gates off, except for emergency access. And there's a note on the development plan that says those gates have to remain closed, except for emergency access. Now, as a technical matter, those gates aren't actually on this development plan, because this is only on the front side of the property, and those gates are on the back side of the property, which isn't being rezoned. So to accommodate that, we have also entered into a private agreement with the Neighborhood Association that says those gates shall remain closed except for emergency access. That way, it's in two places, both on a development plan and it's a private right of restriction. I don't say that because I ask you all to approve it, but because I want to be transparent and I told the neighborhood I would say these things just like I did at the PUD3 hearing to make sure that everyone knows what we've agreed to do and everyone understands what we have agreed, it is transparent, and it's accountable. So that's a quick review of the issues of traffic. With respect to the Neighborhood Association, we don't come expecting that any single owner here couldn't object to the zone change. We haven't asked for that. But we think we've worked with the Neighborhood Association to get them to at least not object or to approve the zone change. And we have a lengthy document, data restrictions, that we're going to enter into them. It does a couple things. We are limiting certain types of uses on the property. While permissible under the PUD 3, we're agreeing we won't use them on the property. Second, we have restrictions on not only the noise ordinance that the city has, but where we can place speakers, any outdoor speakers in the restaurant area, which would be the only place they'd be in this area. So they are oriented away from the neighborhoods, probably towards the railroad tracks or into the interior spaces. It talks about the development plans also have to come to the neighborhoods, similar to the note on the development plan. And then it talks about a way to amend it. So with that, it's about as quick as an abbreviated hearing as I think I've given on a zone change, Mr. Penn. But I think that it covers a lot of ground really quickly. I'm happy to answer any questions as well as our team is here today if we can answer questions. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Penn? Mr. Billings, having seen this at the subdivision meeting and having the discussion that we've had, the work that you all have done since then, we thank you for. Because we were having trouble really understanding what was happening here. and it wasn't the fact that we couldn't understand it, we just couldn't see it on the screen that we were on there. So if the staff is fine with these conditions and you're fine with these conditions, the fact that the neighbors aren't down there screaming tells me that you all have done a lot of work with them, and I appreciate that and I thank you for that. Well, and they can speak for themselves, too. I don't want to put words in the neighborhood's mouth, but we submitted two different revisions since the committee meeting. Just that's how quickly we've worked to try to make sure we're addressing these. Thank you. All right. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Billy. I just have one final point, and that is, Mr. Crum, if you ever decide you don't want to be a planner, you may have a job as an auctioneer. Oh, man, I'm going to leave that one alone. Thank you. Okay. But we may go out of turn here. We have Stuart Kearns here from Transportation Planning that would like to speak. We popped the presentation up there real quick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Okay. Attorney Collins. I do quickly just want to do a quick flip it. There we go. Perfect. Okay. Before we get into this, if you indulge me, I want to talk really quickly about, give you kind of a quick overview of just kind of how traffic impact studies work and why they should be taken with a grain of salt. And I promise you that this is not something I will preface every presentation with, but I did kind of want to talk about these things because I'm going to be coming before you going forward or at least somebody on our staff. First of all, I think as you know, traffic studies are kind of based on trip generation rates. They come out of the IT trip generation manual. This is a good thing. It's a lot of data. It's about three books worth of data. But this is basically trip rates taken from all over the country. And so without a local study, trip rates don't always reflect local conditions. That's one thing you've got to take with a grain of salt. Another thing is existing conditions. When you do a traffic impact study or when the consultant goes out, one of the first things they'll do is they'll go out and they'll count the AM and PM traffic at the different intersections. And usually that's just a single day. They'll go out one morning, one afternoon. So you're only getting a single observation. So there's a lot of things that can change at intersections, and especially today the way things work with people working from home, people traveling at different times. There's a lot of fluctuation on what can be happening from one day to the next. The other thing is trip distribution. That's where you're saying, you know, how much of the site traffic is going to come from this direction, how much is going to come from here. There's some good information out there. We have some historical stuff, but it's still, again, a best guess. Another thing that can really change is development timelines. They may base their future year on a particular year, but it may get pushed out. There are amendments. You know, land uses can change. Another thing a traffic study really can't account for are things like human and societal factors, things like when you're looking forward. We didn't know about COVID. We didn't know about people changing their work patterns. Another thing we don't really know about is when a particular site gets pretty inundated with traffic, people tend to change their driving habits. They tend to avoid certain areas at certain times. So it kind of reaches an equilibrium. So things don't get progressively worse over time. And then the one thing I really wanted to talk about really quickly, because I think this is something that can really be misleading, is the level of service scale. You know, we've always looked at, you know, level service A to F, and because we look at it as a report card, you can kind of look at things as, oh, well, you know, F to D is really, really bad. I just kind of give you our perspective versus how traffic studies describe it. So you're looking at level service A and B for signalized and signalized intersections, and that's like less than 10 seconds up to about 20 seconds. Traffic studies, they call this excellent. Transportation planners, we say that this is pretty much anything but excellent because if you're getting an A or a B in the peak hour, then you've probably built your road too big. You've really put in a lot more capacity than you need. C and D, kind of between 15 seconds to a minute of delay, that's kind of your sweet spot. That means you're using your capacity effectively. When you get up into E and F, you wouldn't want your overall intersection to consistently operate a D or F during the peak hours. But occasionally, if you have something that takes a little bit longer to make a left turn from a side street or from the main street onto the side street, you know if that happens occasionally that's okay so just kind of wanted to say that to kind of preface things because what you don't want to do is uh make decisions to make major improvements to improve things because oftentimes if you're trying to make major improvements to an intersection to improve traffic flow that's great for people that are driving through but it's not always the best thing for the neighborhood if you've got a lot of people that are like you know trying to across the street every time you add an auxiliary lane, or if you change the signal timing, that can often be detrimental to pedestrians. So while we understand that it's important to look at those things, and certainly through the study, we'll be looking through the Forbes Road study, we'll be looking at those kinds of things. That's kind of a wait and see thing. And we need to really be looking at all users of the area, not just the people that are driving through. So that said, let me jump in to just talk about the development itself. Now, two main roadways through here, of course, are West Main Street and Leastown Road. West Main and then, of course, Forbes Road. Leastown Road is a two-lane principal arterial. It's got a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. As you can see, the average daily traffic, the last time they did a count was about 2020. has a count of about 14,720. But if you look at the past 30 years, it stayed pretty much the same since 94 or so. Pretty consistent. Forbes Road, similar situation. Tulane Minor Arterial, speed limit of 35. They had an ADT of just under 8,000 in 2021. And if you look at that one, we're almost back to where we were 30 years ago. You kind of had a steady increase from 94 to 2012, and then things have kind of dropped off. So traffic through here is pretty steady. And, you know, as you know, there are not going to be any major widenings to Leastown Road. So it's pretty much going to stay like it is going forward, no major improvements. The trip generation is based on a set of proposed land uses that you see here. and basically what that yields is about 476 trips in the morning peak and 753 in the afternoon peak. One thing they didn't do in this is you've heard us talk about pass-by. That's where people who are already driving by, through traffic might come in and go to a restaurant or do something that will reduce the trips. In the study, they didn't consider pass-by, which is good. it gives them a more conservative estimate. So taking that, then I just wanted to talk about the intersection conditions at full build. And just kind of, rather than break down each movement, I'm just going to focus on the ones that are like at level service, higher than level service D or so. Basically, if you look at Leastown and Forbes, the signalized intersection, your through movements are fine. You've got some excess capacity there, so not really a big issue. The movements from Forbes Road, the turning movements and the through movements from Forbes at the intersection are all going to be at level service D during the peaks. So you've still got a lot of capacity there. Leastown at Turner Commons Way and at Clyde Street, which is currently unsignalized, the through movements, again, are pretty high. You know, this is an unsignalized, so they're not having to stop. There's no stop condition for the through movements. Clyde Street and Turner Commons. You know, of course, this is movements coming from a side street. So even now, they're going to be at level service F. You can't really – your right turns from the side streets would be fine. But as you know, like making a left turn onto a major highway without the benefit of a signal is going to be a little bit more difficult. and certainly trying to drive straight through. Fortunately, because street connectivity, people that live on Clyde Street can go down, they can kind of cut through on Liggett and come out another way. So if traffic is really bad and they need to make a left turn, like they're trying to go out, they have an alternate, which is a good reason to have street connectivity. And finally, the proposed access point on Forbes Road, all of the movements are going to be at level service A or B, so no real issues there. Really, the only major recommendation that came out in the study was the, you know, aside from looking at the intersection of Forbes Road and Lee's Town, which is kind of outside the scope of this study, was the intersection of Turner Commons Way. The turn lane analysis shows that there would be a benefit to a turn lane, but given the viaduct and the bridge, there's really not adequate length to do so. And there really isn't a lot of people queuing up to turn right, so there might be a little bit of delay for people turning right into there, but not so much that it would justify a major project to try to build a turn lane through there. And finally, this intersection really, even with the volumes that are there, doesn't meet signal warrants. And given its proximity to the Forbes Road signal, probably would not be recommended to have this intersection signalized. So with that, I would just open it up if anybody has any questions. Any questions for Stuart? Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you very much. All right. That's good to know. Okay, now we're up for public comment. Does anyone like to speak on this particular item? Yes. So I was just wondering what the justification for leaving the gate access on underneath the Main Street Bridge is. if, given that traffic study, if Forbes is an A and we already have the infrastructure there with signaling, why wouldn't we just route people to always come through Forbes and then make the turn into the complex? Because effectively, you're just turning a residential road into a main corridor for people coming from the distillery district or that side of town to drive through the neighborhood to enter the complex. So for me as a resident there, that's really concerning. We have a lot of neighborhood cats, you know, and that's just going to bring a lot of people driving, yeah, through the neighborhood. So is there any particular justification or thinking there for that? He was. Oh, okay. Sorry. We heard you. Okay. By the time Mr. Billings will address your question in a minute. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you for your time. My name is Rick Wells. I live at 201 Price Road. I don't know if you're familiar where that is at, but it's the Lorlard Lofts. You mentioned the tobacco company. Oh, there you are, earlier today. And I have not, I'm not opposed. I'm excited about progress and development and those sorts of things, but in looking at this, there's been a few things, and I appreciate the invitation today. This is my first opportunity to interact with you or the developer. Good afternoon. And so, that being said, there's been a lot of talk about the impact study. I would like to know where and how we can obtain that Once that's been completed, I don't know if that's going to be communicated or posted publicly or anything like that. That will be okay. If we can find out which website or how to get that, that would be great. That being said, there was in the, and this is more of a question, the stoplights and the access there. A lot of this talk is about what's across the street and Forbes across Main Street. And so if you're traveling in that area, and again, for relevance, it's near the Lexington Cemetery. There's an overpass there that goes over Price Road. And it's a very, very tight turn by Palumbo Lumber there. And that's a big headache in rush hour. This is an eighth of a mile from the major entrance and exit that we're talking about. So I'm curious. Again, I hope people have great ideas, but that's a very, very difficult intersection to work through. As a matter of fact, it's almost like doing a U-turn to get back there. People have now learned that you pull up to the right if you're trying to get out onto Main Street. I don't want to bore you with all that, but there's that issue. And then interestingly, as to the renderings, it looked, and forgive me, this is not being disrespectful, but everything ends at the railroad track. And yet, whoops, I'm sorry, our home is directly across, I mean, very near the railroad track. I would imagine that my window is from here to the door to the railroad track. It's that close. So there were some comments about maybe redirecting some of the restaurant noise or speakers across the railroad tracks. Well, there are 40 condominium units right there near that new part of the development. And I think it's great that there's been communication with the neighborhood, with those living across the street on Main or Forbes or that sort of thing. but I have not heard any opportunity to talk about where we are, and then towards, if you go up Price and toward Georgetown, there's a mobile home park. There's a lot of homes there that this could impact or whatever. And again, I think it's great that there's an impact study with the traffic. It's very busy there along Lee's Town to get into the Kroger, to get into gas stations, that sort of thing. So I'd just like some more answers in the future to see how that's going to impact our homes and our property values. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Billings, you want to see? I think that's, we got one more? Okay, two more. All right. Hello, Mr. Forrester. Back there. Mr. Rock Daniels, 1519 Old Leastown Road. You know, first, you know, talking about the traffic, luckily, I'm president of the Metathorpe Neighborhood Association. Luckily, our neighborhood got together and worked really hard last year to push the state to put the new double diamond that's going to occur on Leastown Road at New Circle in the budget, and it's going to start this year. And they're going to widen Leastown Road from Burke Road to New Circle, and it's going to be two lanes going each way. So that's going to help with traffic a lot, I think. So that being said with traffic, that was a good thing. So, but reading this, on behalf of the Metathorpe Neighborhood Association, I would like to recognize some people and groups that have contributed to the success of this process. First and foremost, Mr. Darian Turner and his staff have been transparent, amicable, communicative, and generous with the Neighborhood Association during this entire process. So thank you, Darren. We're thankful that our new neighbor is going to be a good neighbor, and we look forward to growing our newly established relationship with him and working with him to realize his vision for this development. Additionally, Mr. Nathan Billings and his staff have been professional, patient and extremely helpful to our neighborhood during this process and we thank them for that my final thank thank you goes out to Hal Bailey Tracy Wade and the LFUCG planning staff we appreciate the time candor and communication that have been afforded to us over the last 18 months that we've been working together with them to put this together the neighborhood association now fully supports the proposed zone change and the related proposed development plan in its current version, and our support should be a direct testament to all the time and effort that this entire group has put in. Thanks again, everyone, and we wish you continued success with this project. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I'm sure staff and everyone else is appreciative. Yes, sir. Gabe Hensley, I'm the resident of Meadowthorpe, 301 Pelican. I'm also the chairman of the Meadowthorpe Development Review Committee, which was activated after several years when this project was announced. I'll echo Rock's comments. The proposed development plan and zone change is acceptable and supported by the MNA, Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association. I'll expand on this a little. The process was not always easy, but it worked. Education was warranted and administered. Contentious exchanges were had and differences of opinion existed. But progress was made and common ground was found. The process worked and is still working if you're willing to put in the time and effort. We now share the confidence shown and expressed by Mr. Turner. We believe that this development project will be an asset to Meadowthorpe and the City of Lexington. Thanks again to everyone involved. The committee now plans to direct the sites of our efforts towards partnering with Mr. Turner and other adjacent property owners to petition the LFUCG and the KYTC to address traffic issues along Leastown Road. In conjunction with the approval of these proposals that are in front of you, the M&A is requesting the Planning Commission, the MPO, and the LFUCG to commit to action in the form of both independent study and in cooperation study with the KYTC to accurately identify the traffic problems and the potential solutions that currently exist and to consider how this infill and redevelopment project will interact with the current state of our transportation infrastructure in Meadowthorpe and on Lees Town Road. Ultimately, we're expecting our elected city and state officials to allot and spend money on well thought out, calculated, holistic solutions that will serve the future of this neighborhood and this corridor. In closing, I'll reiterate that we believe the proposed development plan is ready to go, but the adjacent streets and intersections that are outside the realm of the traffic study submitted with the proposed plan and out of the control of Mr. Turner are not ready for the additional traffic that will be generated by this development once this development is built out. Mr. Turner says we have five to 10 years and we're imploring all who are responsible for doing so to accept the challenge now of solving existing traffic issues and meeting the future transportation needs of this corridor. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Council, my name is Ben Halida. I represent Stantec Consulting Services. We lease a lot of 1307 West Main Street that abuts to the back parking lot of the 1409 property. And I wanted to try to get some more information regarding the building we have back there and what would be potentially developed back there. Because we tend to have a lot of weight and a lot of equipment back there. So I was interested if there would be retaining walls put in or what that might look like. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Is there anyone else? Okay, Mr. Billings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to keep my comments in response brief. Let me answer the last question first with respect to the Stantec property on Main Street. It has a small corner that interacts with both the Forbes property and the Turner Commons property. There's actually a development plan that has expired now, but has been previously approved for a second building in the approximate location where the building is proposed behind the 1409 property. As far as the retaining wall, that building hasn't been designed. We don't have construction plans. We have a location of it. The roadway has already been cut in. I think actually the Stantec property, their fenced area, actually comes into our property some, but to me none of that has been raised at the zone change or development plan stage. Certainly I'm sure that as all of the appropriate departments review construction plans, they're going to make sure that we're not in any way doing anything to undercut or subside Stantex property or damage it. I mean, there's a stairwell there and a pretty large sloped hill, but all that stuff is typically handled outside the development plan stage during construction. with respect to the question about the underpass being open our belief is that that actually not only helps us i mean the turner common property because it gives a another means of ingress egress out but it actually helps the the melrose oak park neighborhood that they can now find better ways to to either come under the underpass come through turner commons to forbes road and use the light there to take a right on Forbes Road or to come up through our development to Turner Commons Way and take a right onto Main Street. That's why I said earlier, I think there's a couple of solutions to this. None of them can be resolved during a zone change process or through the development plan because some of those solutions are off-site, but that we need their input to figure out what is the best solution to this. This is not because we can agree to it, but perhaps it's one that there's no left-hand turn lanes off of Main Street, either onto Clyde Street, meaning when you're heading west, or there's no left-hand turn lane as you're going eastbound on Leastown into Turner and Commons Way, and you go through that. Again, I'm not a traffic engineer. I don't know that we can solve those at this stage today, but as evidenced by the Meadowthorpe neighborhood's comments, we remain committed to figuring out the best traffic solution because whatever's good for the neighborhoods is good for us too. This isn't a competitive spirit. It has to be mutually beneficial. The final comments about the price road traffic, I think that we're mindful of the traffic there. That's a problem that was caused long ago by other people. I think there's only a right-hand turn out of Main Street as you head west, and you have to circle around to come back around on the south side of Main Street to turn off a price road. You saw by the traffic impact study, will there be more traffic? Yes, but 700 cars out of 14,000 is a drop in the bucket. Our traffic is not impacting the level of service on the Main Street-Leastown corridor. So I don't know that I caught them all, but I think that's briefly in response. I would encourage this. One of the things that I don't know this for sure, but I know that some owner or owners from Melrose Oak Park were interactive with us in meetings with Metathorpe. I don't know that they have an active neighborhood association. I would encourage those owners to get active in their neighborhood association or to get their neighborhood association active. because having that group is one of the best ways for us to communicate because individual owners, we don't know which owners want to respond. People get notice of this process. You know, unless somebody calls me, I don't know that they want to speak or have involvement. Get your neighborhood involved and call us. We're transparent. You all have seen that. The Metathorpe neighborhood sees that. Staff will make us be that way. I think one of the other comments was the traffic study. I believe it's available in Acela. Everything that we have filed is available in Acela. If you don't know what Acela is, you can talk to staff or even me, and I'll show you how to get on there. It's pretty easy. It's publicly available. That includes the zone change applications, all the development plan revisions, the color renderings, the traffic impact study. All of that is publicly available. It's just some people may not know where that resource is, and we're happy to help direct them to that. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Any other questions I can answer? I have a question. Yes, Mr. Billings. Thank you, Mr. Billings. You raise a good point. If the Melrose Oak Park Neighborhood Association does not yet exist, do we amend a condition to say that notification will be given to them as well as the Metathorpe neighborhood once their association is formed? If I can make a suggestion, Mr. Stips, it's my understanding that at one point they had an association. I just don't know that it is active anymore. and whether it's active or not, we can give service to the last registered agent, even if it's no longer active on the Secretary of State so we have a contact person. All right. Thank you. Are you active now? It's inactive. It's just a low-income neighborhood. And so we have a lot of trouble getting involved. So ladies and gentlemen, just if we're going to make comments, I need you to come up to the microphone just so that we can get in the future. But just to reiterate, you indicated that the Neighborhood Association is currently inactive. This is reflective in our notes as well for mailing. But the Planning Commission can identify an area of notification which is still within record. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Billings. I had one question. Sorry. Could you tell us that there was one comment about the sound? I was thinking the same thing also. Is there what relationship of sound to the townhomes you're going to build there as well? So can you put my PowerPoint back up or the development plan, either one? So while it's being pulled up, the location of the townhomes on the site are linearly towards the north of the area, the commercial area. The commercial area has an interior courtyard that is designed for the space to be what any outdoor entertainment would be. This is not intended to be a place like the Burrell, which is where tickets are sold and bands play. It's intended to be a space where you have someone with a bar or restaurant outdoor playing an acoustic or playing on a mic and singing on Jimmy Buffett songs. It's not a commercial music venue. And so that's been the goal of that central courtyard area. Let me pull up. I know with the lighting in here, it's sometimes hard to see in this plan. But let me see if I've got one more. So this is the area here that's intended to be where if there's music, it would be played. And when you look at that on the development plan, that is this area right here. The townhounds here are here. So could you hear residual music? Sure, because it's 800, 1,000 feet away or 500 feet, something like that. But the goal of that, the music is all directed into this area here. So we're not having speakers on here that would project this way. We're not having speakers here that are projected this way. We're not having speakers that are projected this way. I believe if you look on an aerial map, which I don't have my presentation, 201 Price Road is the Lorelai lofts. And I'll show up here, sir, too. This is the interior courtyard where the music is intended to be. The Lorelai lofts are more like right here. We're happy to talk to them about a way to direct. All the music has to be interior directed instead of exterior. the comment earlier wasn't meant to say we're going to focus the music on the condos across the railroad tracks. I don't know if you've been down there when the railroad comes through or a train comes through, but that's about the loudest thing anybody's going to hear, and our music will never compete with that. Thank you. Mr. Migler? Just a follow-up to this, and this may be a question that you know and maybe a question that staff knows. What is the width of the railroad easement? I'm just curious with our I know with a normal business zone that the conditional use permit for outdoor live entertainment requires 100 feet separation and I was just curious if there was 100 feet separation on that. From the Lower Lardloff's area, the residential condo area? I don't know. I would tell you whatever. I don't know what that says in the PUD 3. Whatever the ordinance is, we're going to have to comply with regardless. So if the music is in this area here, I don't know for sure, but I suspect that's well more than 100 feet from the Lower Lardloff condominiums. and again this is one of the things that I'm happy to work with that. We know the board there. We're happy to talk with them. It's the first we've heard from their association or from anybody in their association. We're happy to talk to them about ways to do noise mitigation. Here's what we don't want and we've been very clear all along in all our meetings. The borough is a different type of venue and it creates a lot of noise because it's an outdoor music venue and you can hear that noise from Meadowthorpe, you can hear it in Melrose Oak Park, you can hear it down at the Pepper Distillery across the road. We don't want that impact on the neighborhoods. The goal of this is we didn't write the pledge so that we have outdoor music venues. It's not a concert area. It's written that it is ancillary to a restaurant or bar or area or food venue. But it is not intended to be a commercial event. And so I don't think it's permissible now to have that type of commercial venue, But we're happy to talk through whatever we need to with those neighbors to help mitigate that. Thank you. Mr. Mickler, from a rough estimate from aerial photography, it is approximately 125 feet from property to property across the rail area. Besides the main line that went through there, there was lines to unload into those warehouses. So it had to be at least two wide plus whatever the median is between there. So it had to be over 100 feet. Okay. Any other questions from Mr. Billing before he takes a seat? Thank you, sir. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Staff, do you want to make any additional comments? We're good to go. All right, thank you. All right, so we're bringing it back to the commission for any further conversations or discussions about it, questions, or the floor is open. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yes, sir. Typically, what is our notification radius? 500 feet. I'm sorry? 500 feet. 500 feet. So would it be appropriate rather than say, the Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association and a neighborhood association which is dormant, And then, of course, for the Lorellard lofts, would it be more appropriate just to say that residences within 500 feet be notified of the changes as discussed with the Metathorpe Neighborhood Association? Can you confirm how many letters we sent to owners and residents? Within the 500-foot notification area, 303 letters were sent to the property owners. 434 letters were sent to occupants or those residing within those properties in the 500-foot area. And then two neighborhood associations were notified. I truly don't want to put an undue burden on the applicant. And I think you've acted entirely in good faith. I just, when I saw that we were notifying one neighborhood association that was directly affected by the development, but we weren't notifying another, even though now we know that it's dormant, I just wanted there to be some equity. If I may suggest then, perhaps just to simplify the note, is that Meadowthorpe neighborhood, which is not, I think, really an issue, the Lower Lauderdale Condos, because that's a condo association, that association is never going to not be defunct. And that's where I think 201 Price Road is. So that way that condo association board, which I know is active, does get noticed. And then I believe the street that parallels Main Street is called Thompson. And then Clyde Street, all residents on those two streets or Clyde Street a certain number of feet down. That's the way the two streets that are actually border impacted without having to be 700 letters that are sent out. And, sir, I would add Old Main Street to that list as well. That is the road that connects between Thompson Road and Clyde Street. Okay, that's what I was thinking of, the one that actually parallels Maine is Old Main, not Thompson then. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Bill. Comment time? Yes, sir. Thank you. Well, it's for me, I mean, I've sat here in amazement just with how refreshing this whole experience has been. The fact that y'all been working for 18 months, the cooperation that exists. We've taken, you know, you're talking about an example of infill utilization and bringing it to relevancy and adding an amendment to our community, trying to work with the neighborhoods. I just think it's quite remarkable. And I just really commend all of y'all for what you're doing. Thank you for your comments. Yep, I think everybody. Okay, the floor is open. Mr. Davis. Could we perhaps, then I'll get off of this, but we're going to notify Meta Thorpe, and then can we add in that particular condition, and any future Melrose Oak Park Neighborhood Association that is in good standing with the Secretary of State? Is that fair? It's a loss. I'm sorry? Would it be registered with the city rather than the secretary of state? Well, so most of our neighborhood associations are not also homeowners associations. And so there's not necessarily any requirement that they be a 501c3 or organized in any way. They're just a group of people who are interested in something. So registered with the Division of Planning is usually, it's what says in the ordinance. Okay. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN, MJDP, or do you need the zone first? Yes, sir. We need the zone first, if you don't mind. Sure. Approval of PLNMAR 2221, Turner Property 4, LLC. Okay. We have a motion. Second. And a second. by Mr. DeMovilland. Any further discussions to that motion? Can I say any? Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2268 with the 17 conditions outlined, modifying condition 16 to say that the Metathorpe Neighborhood Association and any future Melrose Oak Park Neighborhood Association that is registered with the Division of Planning to be notified of any plan amendment prior to such amended plan being filed with the Division of Planning. Okay. All right, we have a motion and a second to that motion by Mr. DeMovina. Let's give us a minute here so we can vote via grant. Okay, motion passes. unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Billing and the applicant. Appreciate it. And the citizens. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Good job. All right. Commission items. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, thank you. This is the end of our agenda. I want to remind you all that we will reconvene in three weeks on January 5th for our committee meetings, 830 subdivision, 130 for zoning. And the staff wishes the planning Commission a very Merry Christmas. Thank you. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.