# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - February 9, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 9, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5756 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5756?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-02-09 - **Last revised**: February 9, 2023 - **Length**: 2,766 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution 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 February 9, 2023, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission reviewed 11 agenda items during the session, with 9 motions and votes taken throughout the meeting. The commission heard 2 public comments from attendees regarding items under consideration. Of the 11 development projects reviewed, 5 items were postponed to future meetings, including Cherokee Park Subdivision, South End Park Unit 2 (Davis Park), Distillery District West (U-Haul Lexington), Coleman Property (Newtown Pike Hampton Inn & Suites), and Triple Stars Property. The remaining 6 projects received approval from the commission, demonstrating active development review across various sectors of Lexington-Fayette County. The approved projects included the East High Multi-Use Project, Lexington Mall Lot 6A for Tidal Wave Auto Spa, Bluegrass Business Park Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm), Jerrico Inc. Professional Office Project Lot 2, George West Estate Property (Howard Property), and the Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property (The Fountains at Palomar). Several of these approvals were amendments (AMD) to previously reviewed development plans, indicating ongoing refinements to existing projects in the planning pipeline. ## Attendance The meeting on February 9, 2023 had eight members present and three absent. **Present:** • Larry Forester • Headley Bell • Robin Michler • Judy Worth • Ivy Barksdale • Zach Davis • Bruce Nicol • Graham Pohl **Absent:** • de Movellan • Meyer • Penn No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included nine formal votes, all of which passed unanimously with all eight members present voting in favor. **Administrative Items** The commission first approved the January 12, 2023 minutes on a motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Graham Pohl. They also unanimously approved the January performance bonds and letters of credit on a motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. **Postponements** Five development projects were postponed by unanimous votes: • **PLN-MJDP-20-00074**: Cherokee Park Subdivision, Lot 1 & Suburban Court Subdivision, Block A, Lots 1 & 2 was postponed on a motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale • **PLN-MJDP-22-000085**: South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park) was postponed on a motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Judy Worth • **PLN-MJDP-22-000045**: Distillery District West (U-Haul Lexington) amendment was postponed on a motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale • **PLN-MJDP-22-00079**: Coleman Property (Newtown Pike Hampton Inn & Suites) amendment was postponed on a motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Judy Worth • **PLN-MJDP-18-00004**: Triple Stars Property was postponed on a motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Ivy Barksdale **Approvals** The consent agenda was approved unanimously on a motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. The commission also approved **PLN-MJDP-22-00062**, the Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property (The Fountains at Palomar) amendment [timestamp: 09:00]. This approval included conditions related to soundproofing and service road design. All votes were 8-0 with the following members voting in favor: Larry Forester, Headley Bell, Robin Michler, Judy Worth, Ivy Barksdale, Zach Davis, Bruce Nicol, and Graham Pohl. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the meeting during the public comment period, raising concerns about traffic impacts and infrastructure planning. **Vicki Stevens** spoke at [timestamp: 08:00] regarding traffic noise concerns in her neighborhood. Stevens expressed concerns about traffic noise and highlighted the lack of visual screening or noise barriers at the end of Glade Court. She emphasized the need for mitigation measures to address the noise impacts on nearby residents. **Jay Conne** addressed the meeting at [timestamp: 08:30] with comments about service road and pedestrian facilities. While Conne expressed overall satisfaction with the plan being discussed, he raised specific concerns about the proposed location of the service road and the adequacy of pedestrian facilities in the project design. Both speakers focused on infrastructure and traffic-related issues, with Stevens emphasizing noise mitigation needs and Conne highlighting concerns about road placement and pedestrian access while maintaining general support for the overall plan. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among participants. **Soundproofing and Service Road Design for The Fountains at Palomar** A contentious debate emerged regarding noise mitigation measures and service road design for The Fountains at Palomar development project. The primary concern centered on potential noise pollution from delivery trucks using the proposed service road and the adequacy of soundproofing measures to protect nearby residents. Multiple stakeholders participated in the heated discussion, including concerned residents from the surrounding area and representatives from the applicant's development team. Residents expressed worries about the impact of truck traffic on their quality of life, particularly regarding noise levels during delivery hours. The discussion highlighted the tension between commercial development needs and residential community concerns. The debate focused on technical aspects of the service road design and whether proposed soundproofing measures would be sufficient to mitigate noise impacts from commercial vehicle traffic. Participants examined various aspects of the project's noise mitigation strategy and questioned whether additional measures might be necessary to address community concerns. The outcome of this contested item was not specified in the available meeting data, though the extensive discussion suggests this issue required significant deliberation among meeting participants before any resolution could be reached. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item discussion.* ## Cherokee Park Subdivision, Lot 1 & Surburban Court Subdivision, Block A, Lots 1 & 2 The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-20-00074, which involved a proposed amendment to revise the development of Cherokee Park Subdivision, Lot 1 and Surburban Court Subdivision, Block A, Lots 1 & 2. Bruce Simpson served as a key speaker during the discussion of this development proposal. The amendment sought to modify the existing development plans for the properties in question. However, the item faced significant procedural and technical concerns that prevented its advancement. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the proposal and recommended postponement due to several outstanding issues. Specifically, the committee identified questions regarding requested variances that had not been adequately addressed. Additionally, the proposal lacked a required tree preservation plan, which is typically a mandatory component of development applications. These deficiencies in the application materials and unresolved variance questions led to the committee's recommendation that the item be delayed rather than proceeding to a decision. The planning commission ultimately followed this recommendation and postponed consideration of the Cherokee Park and Surburban Court subdivision amendment. The postponement allows the applicant time to address the outstanding concerns, including providing clarification on the variance requests and submitting the missing tree preservation plan. The item will likely return to the planning commission agenda once these requirements have been satisfied and the Subdivision Committee has had an opportunity to review the completed application materials. ## South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park) The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-22-000085 for South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park), which proposes new multi-family development and a workforce development building. Clay Johnson served as the key speaker for this item, presenting the development plan to the commission. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this proposal and recommended postponement due to concerns about the project's compliance with Article 28-4 of the municipal code. The committee identified potential regulatory issues that needed to be addressed before the project could move forward. Following the Subdivision Committee's recommendation and the concerns raised regarding Article 28-4 compliance, the planning commission voted to postpone consideration of the South End Park, Unit 2 development. This postponement will allow the applicant time to address the regulatory compliance issues identified by the Subdivision Committee before bringing the proposal back for review. The project, when resubmitted, will need to demonstrate full compliance with the relevant code provisions before the commission can proceed with its evaluation of the multi-family housing and workforce development components of the plan. ## Distillery District West (U-Haul Lexington) (AMD) The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-22-000045, an amendment for the Distillery District West project, also known as U-Haul Lexington. Nathan Billings served as a key speaker during the discussion of this proposed amendment. The amendment sought to revise the permitted use of the property, though specific details of the proposed changes were not elaborated upon during the meeting. The item had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which plays a role in evaluating development proposals before they reach the full Planning Commission. The Subdivision Committee had recommended postponement of the amendment due to outstanding questions regarding compliance with Article 19 of the applicable regulations. These compliance concerns were significant enough that the committee felt the issues needed to be resolved before the amendment could move forward in the approval process. Following the Subdivision Committee's recommendation and the discussion during the meeting, the Planning Commission decided to postpone consideration of the Distillery District West amendment. This postponement will allow time for the applicant to address the Article 19 compliance questions raised by the Subdivision Committee before the item returns to the Planning Commission for further review. The postponement represents a procedural step to ensure all regulatory requirements are properly addressed before the commission makes a final determination on the proposed amendment to the Distillery District West development. ## Coleman Property (Newtown Pike Hampton Inn & Suites) (AMD) The Planning Commission considered an amendment for the Coleman Property development, identified as PLN-MJDP-22-00079, which involves a proposed Hampton Inn & Suites hotel on Newtown Pike. Nathan Billings served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting details about the proposed hotel development amendment. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this application and recommended postponement of the item. The committee raised specific questions regarding the project's compliance with Article 16 of the applicable regulations. These compliance concerns were significant enough to warrant delaying consideration of the amendment until the issues could be properly addressed. The amendment sought to revise aspects of the development plan for the proposed hotel project. However, due to the unresolved questions about regulatory compliance identified by the Subdivision Committee, the Planning Commission decided to postpone consideration of the Coleman Property amendment. The outcome of this agenda item was postponement, allowing time for the applicant to address the Article 16 compliance issues raised by the Subdivision Committee before the amendment could move forward in the approval process. ## Triple Stars Property The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00004 regarding the Triple Stars Property during their February 9, 2023 meeting. Tom Martin served as the key speaker for this discussion item. The Triple Stars Property plan has a history of previous approvals, having been both approved and reapproved in prior proceedings. However, the item faced complications during the current review process. The Subdivision Committee had reviewed the proposal and made a recommendation to postpone consideration of the Triple Stars Property. This recommendation stemmed from outstanding questions regarding two specific regulatory areas: • **New parking requirements** - The committee identified concerns about how the project would comply with updated parking standards • **Article 8 compliance** - Questions remained about the project's adherence to Article 8 provisions These unresolved compliance issues prompted the Subdivision Committee to determine that additional time was needed before the Planning Commission could make an informed decision on the matter. Following the discussion and consideration of the Subdivision Committee's recommendation, the Planning Commission voted to **postpone** the Triple Stars Property agenda item. This postponement will allow time for the applicant and staff to address the outstanding questions about parking requirements and Article 8 compliance before the item returns for future consideration. The postponement ensures that all regulatory requirements can be thoroughly reviewed and resolved before the Planning Commission makes a final determination on the Triple Stars Property development proposal. ## East High Multi-Use Project The East High Multi-Use Project (PLN-MJDP-21-00031) was presented for discussion, with Traci Wade serving as the key speaker for this agenda item. The project proposal involves adding one single-family dwelling unit to an existing commercial property, representing a mixed-use development approach. This type of development combines residential and commercial elements on the same site. Prior to the meeting, the Subdivision Committee had already reviewed the project and provided their recommendation for re-approval with conditions. The committee's conditional approval indicates that while they supported the project concept, specific requirements or modifications were deemed necessary for final approval. The project was ultimately approved during the meeting, allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed addition of the residential unit to the existing commercial property. The approval suggests that any concerns raised during the review process were adequately addressed through the conditions established by the Subdivision Committee. This mixed-use approach aligns with contemporary urban planning strategies that promote efficient land use by combining different property types within a single development, potentially providing both commercial services and residential housing in the same location. ## Lexington Mall, Lot 6A (Tidal Wave Auto Spa) (AMD) The planning commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-22-00074 for an amendment to redevelop Lot 6A at Lexington Mall for a Tidal Wave Auto Spa facility. The proposed amendment addresses building placement and parking circulation improvements for the site. Traci Wade served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The amendment focuses on the redevelopment plans for the specific lot within the larger Lexington Mall property, with particular attention to how the new auto spa facility would integrate with existing infrastructure and traffic patterns. Prior to the planning commission meeting, the Subdivision Committee had already reviewed the proposal and provided their recommendation. The committee recommended approval of the amendment, though they included revised conditions as part of their endorsement. The planning commission ultimately approved the amendment for the Lexington Mall Lot 6A redevelopment project. This approval allows the Tidal Wave Auto Spa development to move forward with the building and parking circulation plans as amended, subject to the conditions recommended by the Subdivision Committee. The approval represents progress on redeveloping portions of the Lexington Mall property for new commercial uses, with the auto spa facility representing a different type of retail service than traditional mall tenants. ## Bluegrass Business Park, Lot 4 (Pemberton Farm)(Burke, Hockensmith, & Maggard)(A The planning commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-23-00001 for an amendment to the Bluegrass Business Park development on Lot 4, also known as the Pemberton Farm property. The applicants Burke, Hockensmith, & Maggard sought approval for modifications to their existing development plan. Traci Wade presented the amendment proposal, which calls for the addition of a new 27,600 square foot building and outdoor storage facilities on Lot 3 of the development. The amendment represents an expansion of the current approved development plan for the business park. Prior to the planning commission meeting, the proposal was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which recommended approval of the amendment with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the committee's recommendation were not detailed in the available materials. The planning commission ultimately approved the amendment, allowing the developers to proceed with their plans for the additional building and outdoor storage area. The approval enables the expansion of the Bluegrass Business Park development as proposed by the applicants. This amendment continues the development of the former Pemberton Farm property into commercial and industrial uses as part of the broader Bluegrass Business Park project. The addition of the 27,600 square foot building and outdoor storage will increase the overall development footprint on the site. ## Jerrico Inc. Professional Office Project, Lot 2(AMD) The planning commission reviewed an amendment to the Jerrico Inc. Professional Office Project for Lot 2, identified as PLN-MJDP-23-00002. The proposed amendment seeks to add additional square footage and canopy structures to the existing development plan for Lot 2. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting information about the project amendment to the commission members. The proposal represents modifications to the previously approved development plans for the professional office project. Prior to the commission's consideration, the Subdivision Committee had already reviewed the amendment proposal and provided their recommendation. The Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the amendment, though their recommendation came with specific conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval process. The commission ultimately approved the amendment for the Jerrico Inc. Professional Office Project, Lot 2. The approval allows the developer to proceed with the proposed additions of square footage and canopy structures to the lot, subject to any conditions established by the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. The amendment approval enables the expansion of the professional office development on Lot 2, providing additional building space and covered areas that were not included in the original project plans. This modification to the existing approved development represents an enhancement to the professional office facilities planned for the site. ## George West Estate Property (Howard Property) (AMD) The Planning Commission reviewed an amendment for the George West Estate Property, also known as the Howard Property, under application PLN-MJDP-23-00003. The proposed amendment seeks to add building square footage on Lot 1 of the development. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the commission. The amendment had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which recommended approval of the proposal with specific conditions attached. The commission considered the merits of allowing additional building square footage on the designated lot within the George West Estate Property development. While the specific details of the discussion and any concerns raised by commissioners were not detailed in the available materials, the item proceeded through the review process following the Subdivision Committee's positive recommendation. Following their deliberation, the Planning Commission approved the amendment to add building square footage on Lot 1. The approval came with the conditions that had been recommended by the Subdivision Committee, ensuring that the additional square footage would meet established development standards and requirements for the property. This approval allows the property owner to proceed with plans to increase the building footprint on Lot 1 of the George West Estate Property, subject to compliance with the specified conditions set forth by the Subdivision Committee and adopted by the Planning Commission. ## Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property (The Fountains at Paloma) [timestamp: 09:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-22-00062, an amendment for The Fountains at Palomar project involving the Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property. The proposed amendment sought to revise building configurations, parking arrangements, and circulation patterns on Lots 1, 4, 6, and 8 of the development. Bruce Simpson served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The amendment represented changes to the previously approved development plans for the property. Despite the Subdivision Committee's recommendation to postpone consideration of the amendment, the commission moved forward with their review. The discussion resulted in approval of the amendment, though the commission attached specific conditions to address concerns that arose during the review process. The approved conditions focused on two main areas: soundproofing requirements and service road design specifications. These conditions were implemented to ensure the revised development plans would meet appropriate standards and address potential impacts on the surrounding area. The commission's decision to approve the amendment with conditions demonstrates their approach of working with applicants to address concerns while still allowing projects to move forward when appropriate modifications can be made. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of the January 12, 2023 minutes - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of the January performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-MJDP-20-00074** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Cherokee Park Subdivision, Lot 1 & Surburban Court Subdivision, Block A, Lots 1 & 2 - **PLN-MJDP-22-000085** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of South End Park, Unit 2 (Davis Park) - **PLN-MJDP-22-000045** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Distillery District West (U-Haul Lexington) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-22-00079** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Coleman Property (Newtown Pike Hampton Inn & Suites) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-18-00004** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Triple Stars Property - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of consent agenda - **PLN-MJDP-22-00062** — passed (8-0): Approval of Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property (The Fountains at Palomar)(AMD) --- ## Full transcript ... Test are >> it is going to be viewed as safe by people behind the store between a wall and a tall store. I probably would walk in front of publix to get there. Driving I certainly would go around back. I appreciate that the wall, we asked for a wall that was more soundproof and they accommodated that with a ten-foot wall and I just learned that zoning precludes ten foot. But if it is a mason nairry wall, the place where I am, the ground is highest between my property and the development. So I look up a slope, the double row of ten foot apart fast growing tall, that are supposed to be ten foot in the die a meter, spaced ten feet apart in two staggered rows that should be like a wall of green and they're going to paint the wall. So it disappears. So I'm generally happy with everything here. I do see vicki's point about the waits property, there, the first one in, as possibly needing a more soundproof wall too. I don't know that's a engineering question. So generally I'm here to approve it. As far as stormwater they fixed a lot of stormwater problems for us. I actually put in my own. I put in a patio management system there with 150 could you big feet and number 57 stone wrapped in filter cloth. So that's a I wanted to say thank you. >> MISS Stevens had shared some concerns, that I haven't heard before. I think she would say that we tried to be responsive with respect to all concerns that have been brought to our attention and, even after the planning commission should approve this plan. We made a commitment to palomar, am years ago, to be transparent in everything we did, and will do, and I think even though, the people that, still have reservations, would agree with that. So, we will continue that, look into this issue, this other house, about concern about noise. There's a lot of those that is comes from man of war. And we're going to put in speed bumps to slow the traffic down. So, we have tried to be attentive and be responsive to the neighbors and that's why we got the zoning approved because the neighbors after probably ten or twelve meetings, they liked what we came up with, and we accommodated concerns, addressed concerns that they had, and, I think it will be a very successful shopping center, one that the neighborhood will find attractive, appealing and successful. So be happy top respond to anything else. [Inaudible] >> well, you would call the debate we had, about the marketability and second and third story row tail not being very successful in lexington. So this is, this fits the market based upon all the real estate professionals, and experts we have consulted both in ken zebrowski and out of ken zebrowski that this mix and this level of is well-suited. >> no. [Inaudible] >> I believe that's correct, yes. >> there are two, and, those two voting, and, in that kroger's had one they occupied for one, and [Inaudible] >> I do know that they. >> along that back area, in the proximity of the loading zone because they're bringing their carts in that same way. I think the neighbors concern over sound, am do follow kroger's rule to turn off the idling, and, most have refrigerated units which continue to run even if the truck is not I'd dealing, including all the beer and coke and pepsi, and so I'm curious, I just want, in this meeting to really acknowledge that, there's going to be noise from that along those perimeters and,, I think that, that sort of putting your comment to do a sound, getting a little more specific about what sound proving we're going to be doing, that's what I would be looking for here in this meeting. >> in terms of the sound proving, I pledge to share that with the neighbors prior to the meeting this chamber. So they understand it fully. You know, if there's ongoing issues with respect to management of trucks, noise and that sort of thing, the neighborhood association is very vigilant about neighborhood concerns. I'm satisfied from the commitments that have been made thus far the changes that have been made to address neighborhood concerns, there will be responsive and appropriate to meet those concerns. I can't guarantee they won't hear anything. The public's vehicle, the main trucks do not have the backup beepers, the box trucks that deliver smaller items, you know, to and the tent those become trouble some, those are management issues that publix will address. Up to now, we're had at least in the my experience, they have been responsive to everything that's been brought to their attention to rye to solve and we'll continue to have that work in progress. >> I don't anticipate that management won't be well meaning and receptive to the neighborhood. The reality is that they'll be dealing with dozens of local vendors who have their own employees and their own trucks and getting it right when it is built so it doesn't bother the neighbors seems like a good approach rather than every time a ken zebrowski eagle hires a new driver for that route to, have to train that driver seems like more challenging approach. >> well every problem has challenges, you have identified every one of them. If they want to serve publix, they have to comply. Publix has demonstrated they'll be a good neighbor. >> I think you identified the solution, sound proving along here. Not quite being, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not hearing -- it's sort of vague. Are you comfortable with putting a condition on there for that? >>> well we don't have specifications, I'm not comfortable with doing that. We wanted it to be effective. You're not going to block all the noise. You know, we're volley committing to doing that. Of this is into the requirement under zoning. It was a requirement at the time it was approved. This is a voluntary matter, or voluntary action on the part of publix to do it now. We don't have to do it, in order to secure approval. But after we heard the concerns about the noise from two residents we made that change. So we're gone way beyond what's required. Well million SEPTEMBER I don't think you're providing enough -- I don't see how you're accommodating all the delivery that would be coming to publix. >> you know, I mean, we, in the staff have discussed and vetted the routes that the big trucks will come in, and they're set up for that purpose. You know, you're raising a question, what I call box trucks and that kind of thing. >> with -- where would those be? You have two spots. >> same place, so you're committing, to limit it go to two the size of this publix. 60,000 square feet. >> I can't commit to anything in terms of where. >> you're not willing to limit it to two. I think we need to. >> that's thought at requirement of the zoning ordinance that we get into that level of specificity. A lot of these things are "a work in progress." to the extent that they become a problem, we'll address them. But that's not at requirement in the zoning ordinance to limit access to two bays or anything of of that nature. We're gone way beyond what is required. We want this to be a top-shelf grocery store for this very nice neighborhood that surrounds it, and, I think the neighbors, even those that we had two, out of we started out with 300, that we have committed, to and done what we had said we would do. [Inaudible] >> we have up until now. When we meet there's usually 13 staff. That review our latest iter raising and we get comments from the past, and the traffic engineering, and, I mean to deal with the issues that have been mentioned here today. >> we'll continue with that. >>> you are agreeing to address sound proving issues for the waits property without at condition listed here. >> at this point I don't know where the waits property is. >> it's the glade court issue that's not protected in the existing do I graham. >> yes, you know, I would have to -- look at, you know, get more specific information, I will commit to looking at that time and seeing what it does to resolve it. It doesn't sound that significant, I don't have any authority to commitment to it. But I will say, in the same vein that we have committed to other kinds of concerns like that, that we'll look into it and see what we can do, and in most of the instances we have done something to address it. >> thank you >> anything else? >>> okay. >>> same question. >> okay. >> staff, do you have anything to follow-up? >>> was the volume of deliveries and where the extra trucks going to park discussed? [Inaudible] Again, with spleuchan issues, that's pretty open. So I think the concern is well placed. How do they manage that? How do they intend to manage that. >> well, what I'm trying to avoid here is, an on going multi-year conflict when it could be solve as the applicant suggests with soundproofing along those back of the houses where those extra trucks are most likely to go. >> the reason I asked if it was discussed I was curious if that sort of consideration could be roped into that -- that design of the service road condition. >> I do believe that we can't craft a condition that would require an engineer with the appropriate expertise to design that facility. Because that's not at common expertise with your regular civil engineers. So certainly I think that is something and. >> to be clear I'm talking just about that area in the proximity of the loading zone where you're beer truck will end up pulling up. >> frankly, you're back to a very original concern that was raised at the zone change, about the relationship with the neighborhood. You're right, here we are. That relationship is important. How do we mitigate that? I do believe we could require that they submit to building inspection and planning and engineering plans for a facility designed by the appropriate professional. That's something we can do >> thank you >> so, are you good? >>> I mean, just to the commission, as someone that sees kroger's line up between typically on a typical morning in excess of the two shots they have between four and six other vehicles lined up there and about half of those usually have refrigerated units running, and I know from speaking with the direct neighbor that lives right across from the fence, more problems than idle was those refrigerated units running on those delivery trucks, that are parked not where they are supposed to, because the loading zone is full. So it seems like, in that, I know that neighbor has gone to kroger's and this is a different business. But these trucks are not kroger trucks. These are third parties that you can't control. So it seems like this would be a good condition considering when I looked at the map after the residents spoke these houses are pretty close to that fence line. >> so as -- go ahead. [Inaudible] [Inaudible] >> just to offer up this, we have done sound studies, noise studies if you will, several times, those will be done in connection with the sound proving fence that we'll be putting up. We'll share those with the neighbors. There is a whole other level of review. Where this development goes through sign offs, if all the same people who have weighed in up to now. So, the issues, about, the other lady that needs some sound proving, I'm satisfied we can address that. So these are things that will go through in the signoff process, and to the extent that they are not satisfied, it will comeback here. But, I'm just sharing with you, publix has been very responsive, throughout all plans, that have come before the staff, and the one you have today is the one that has a lot of things with the ones involved and deserves approval. >> if people like to keep their windows closed and want to upgrade to soundproof windows that would make a difference. >> just to be clear, I don't -- I think the issue here, is in the big picture, I -- I want to vote to approve of this project. The issue here in my mind is just that the reality is regardless of whatever management plan we put on paper there's going to be more than two delivery trucks at times and, there's a few houses that are going to be impacted by that in the scheme of the scale of this project. It's a small scale. But those few houses in the proximity of that loading zone are going to see trucks parked along it. And I wanted to get that sort of note added to the plan. [Inaudible] >> well I think that's as fair point and I don't propose realignment of the service road. It's just at this point of service road that I think might be used for parking the trucks. >> thank you both. We'll close this is part out and the bring it back to the commission. Any further discussions? Questions for staff? >>> amongst each other? >>> if there are not any the floor would be open for armotion. >> I'm going to recommend a motion for approval [Inaudible] With the staff with the conditions. >> thank you. Do we have a second to that motion. >> second it. >> any further discussion? >>> I'm wondering if you would be willing to add a condition to the list of conditions that the treatment of checks the houses along the single family houses along the service road is mors equal for all the properties going to be the properties [Inaudible] Before we do the vote, his compute ser down, so we're going to do the vote via raising the hand he. We have a motion and a second. >>> based on what we said, that staff get these plan they will work to accomplish that [Inaudible] It's our understanding, but the sound wall, the service road, pedestrian facility is separate from the landscaping and the sound proving. They're associated geographically and next to each other. But they're not designed one and the same. The sound wall dampening is designed in and of itself on its own. I'm assuming and this is something that I went back to that they would out at that timize an acows take cal engineer to design that correctly. But that will be permitted through engineering and building inspection. They will review that. >> well, I guess, my comment to, is partially here to the other commission members is that I see your hesitation on adding a condition because it's not a clean one. We don't have a clear language from staff. I do also sort of hesitate before adding additional offices to go through in terms of engineering requirement. I guess, so I'm going to vote in support of this but I do charge staff in their discussion and I hope that they do look at some groceries when they drive by in the morning and count realistically how many trucks there are and when they look at the service road take that into account for that finally linement. Thank you. So we have comments have been made and,, motion and second. Start this over again. We're going to vote via hand in the air because his computer is down. All in favor, please raise your hand. >> motion passes unanimously. Thank you. >> any commission items? >>> MR. Duncan. >> good afternoon, thank you, we are having a planning commission public hearing next thursday FEBRUARY 16th. Ordinarily that's a work session day for you all, but next week we'll have the public hearing in this room at 1:30 where you will be presented the goals and objectives for the comprehensive plan and take public comment on those. Thank you. >> thank you. >> this meeting is adjourned.