# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - March 9, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 9, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5779 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5779?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-03-09 - **Last revised**: March 9, 2023 - **Length**: 9,901 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 March 9, 2023, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed two primary agenda items during the session: the Cherokee Park Subdivision Development Plan and the Warrenton Woods Waiver, both of which received approval from the commission. Throughout the meeting, commissioners conducted 11 motions and votes on various matters related to the agenda items and procedural business. The commission also heard from 2 members of the public who provided comments during the designated public comment periods, allowing community input on the development proposals under consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the March 9, 2023 meeting: • Larry Forester • Anthony de Movellan • Janice Meyer • Graham Pohl • Judy Worth • Zach Davis • Ivy Barksdale • Headley Bell Three members were absent: • Nicol • Michler • Penn No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eleven motions with a combination of administrative approvals and development-related postponements. **Meeting Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Judy Worth motioned to approve the February 9, 2023 minutes, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed by roll call vote with 6 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 abstentions. Voting in favor: Larry Forester, Anthony de Movellan, Graham Pohl, Judy Worth, Zach Davis, and Headley Bell. [timestamp: 01:00] Judy Worth motioned to approve the February 16, 2023 minutes, seconded by Headley Bell. The motion passed by roll call vote with 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 3 abstentions. Voting in favor: Larry Forester, Anthony de Movellan, Judy Worth, Headley Bell, and Zach Davis. **Development Postponements** Five development items were unanimously postponed to future meetings: - [timestamp: 02:00] PLN-MJDP-22-000045 (Distillery District West/U-Haul Lexington amendment) - postponed to April 13, 2023 - [timestamp: 03:00] PLN-MJDP-22-00079 (Coleman Property/Newtown Pike Hampton Inn & Suites amendment) - postponed to April 13, 2023 - [timestamp: 04:00] PLN-MJDP-23-00012 (Melrose Addition, Block F, Lots 10, 11, & 12 amendment) - postponed to March 23, 2023 - [timestamp: 05:00] PLN-FRP-23-00005 (Hagyard Farms, LLC Property subdivision) - postponed to April 13, 2023 - [timestamp: 06:00] PLN-MJDP-18-00004 (Triple Stars Property development plan) - postponed to May 11, 2023 **Approvals** Three items received unanimous approval with all 8 members voting in favor: - [timestamp: 07:00] Performance bonds and letters of credit - [timestamp: 08:00] Consent agenda items - [timestamp: 09:00] PLN-MJDP-20-00074 (Cherokee Park Subdivision development plan) - approved subject to 15 revised conditions - [timestamp: 10:00] PLN-MJSUB-22-00013 (waiver for Warrenton Woods, Unit 1-A) All unanimous votes included Larry Forester, Anthony de Movellan, Janice Meyer, Graham Pohl, Judy Worth, Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, and Headley Bell voting in favor. ## Public Comment Two residents spoke during the public comment period regarding the Cherokee Park Subdivision development proposal. **Tom Stevens** addressed the board at [timestamp: 11:00], expressing concerns about the proposed Cherokee Park Subdivision development. Stevens focused on issues related to parking and density, arguing that the development is too dense for the area and will create significant parking problems for the community. **Jerry Gillespie** followed at [timestamp: 12:00], also speaking in opposition to the Cherokee Park Subdivision proposal. Gillespie raised multiple concerns about the development's potential impact on the surrounding area, including: • Parking overflow issues that could affect neighboring properties • Increased traffic congestion in the area • Stormwater runoff problems that could result from the development Both speakers expressed dissatisfaction with the current proposal and urged the board to consider the negative impacts the development could have on the existing community infrastructure and quality of life for current residents. ## Contested Items The Cherokee Park Subdivision Development Plan generated significant community opposition during the meeting, prompting extensive discussion before the council reached a decision. **Cherokee Park Subdivision Development Plan** Community members raised multiple concerns about the proposed subdivision development, focusing on three primary issues: • **Parking adequacy** - Residents questioned whether the planned parking spaces would be sufficient for the proposed density • **Development density** - Opposition centered on concerns that the subdivision would be too densely populated for the area • **Stormwater management** - Community members expressed worries about how increased development would affect local drainage and flooding risks The discussion involved detailed exchanges between community members, city staff, and council members as they worked through the technical and community impact aspects of the proposal. Despite the opposition voiced by residents, the council ultimately moved forward with the development plan. **Outcome:** The Cherokee Park Subdivision Development Plan was approved, but the council attached specific conditions to address some of the community concerns raised during the public discussion. The exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available meeting materials, but they appear to have been crafted in response to the parking, density, and stormwater management issues highlighted by community members. The contentious nature of this item demonstrates the ongoing tension between development interests and community preservation concerns that many municipalities face when evaluating new residential projects. ## Cherokee Park Subdivision Development Plan [timestamp: 09:00] The commission reviewed the Cherokee Park Subdivision Development Plan under case identifier PLN-MJDP-20-00074. The discussion centered on three primary areas of concern: parking adequacy, residential density, and stormwater management infrastructure. Key speakers during the deliberation included Tom Martin, Tom Stevens, Jerry Gillespie, and James Perry, who presented various aspects of the development proposal and addressed commission questions. The development plan underwent scrutiny regarding its parking provisions, with commissioners evaluating whether the proposed parking allocation would meet the needs of future residents. Density considerations were also examined, as the commission assessed whether the planned residential units aligned with zoning requirements and community standards. Stormwater management emerged as a significant discussion point, with speakers addressing how the development would handle drainage and water runoff to prevent flooding and environmental impact in the surrounding area. Following the presentation and discussion of these key issues, the commission moved to approve the Cherokee Park Subdivision Development Plan. However, the approval came with specific conditions that the developers must meet, though the exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available summary. The approval represents a step forward for the Cherokee Park Subdivision project, allowing development to proceed once the stipulated conditions are satisfied by the applicant. ## Warrenton Woods Waiver [timestamp: 10:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJSUB-22-00013, a waiver request for Warrenton Woods regarding sidewalk requirements. The discussion centered on whether to grant relief from standard sidewalk installation mandates for the development. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Trudy, who presented the details of the waiver request and the circumstances surrounding the sidewalk requirements. The commission examined the specific conditions that warranted consideration of the waiver. The waiver approval was directly tied to a previous council decision to accept streets in the development without requiring sidewalks. This council action provided the foundation for the commission's consideration of the waiver request, as it aligned the sidewalk requirements with the broader street acceptance policy already established. Following discussion of the merits and the connection to the council's street acceptance decision, the commission voted to approve the Warrenton Woods waiver. The approval allows the development to proceed without meeting the standard sidewalk installation requirements that would typically apply to new subdivisions. The outcome represents coordination between the commission's waiver decision and the council's earlier determination regarding street standards for this particular development project. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of February 9, 2023 minutes - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of February 16, 2023 minutes - **PLN-MJDP-22-000045** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Distillery District West (U-Haul Lexington) amendment - **PLN-MJDP-22-00079** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Coleman Property (Newtown Pike Hampton Inn & Suites) amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00012** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Melrose Addition, Block F, Lots 10, 11, & 12 amendment - **PLN-FRP-23-00005** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Hagyard Farms, LLC Property subdivision - **PLN-MJDP-18-00004** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Triple Stars Property development plan - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **PLN-MJDP-20-00074** — passed (8-0): Approval of Cherokee Park Subdivision development plan - **PLN-MJSUB-22-00013** — passed (8-0): Approval of waiver for Warrenton Woods, Unit 1-A --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Okay, good afternoon everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is March 9th, 2023. It is now 1.30. And first on the agenda item, or second, is the approval of minutes. The floor is open for approval of the February 9th and February 16th minutes. Mr. Worf. Mr. Chair, on the minutes for February 16th, goals and objectives, since my name's attached to it, I'd like to make a couple of corrections. Yes, ma'am. On page 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, fifth paragraph down next to the last sentence, it says the goal 4 was specifically intended to set up a process to expand the boundary. That needs to say to determine whether to expand the boundary and how to proceed if it's determined it's needed. See all the heads shaking? Okay. Okay, and then the third paragraph from the top where it says, suggest an update to the rural land management plan. It also should add and study the cost of, the study on the cost of development and said that update might be done with the sewer ability study. Those changes. Any questions? Concerns? Ms. Worth, do you want to make a motion with that revision? I would be glad to. Okay. All right, so Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the, let me get my other set of minutes. Somebody got those in front of me, February 9th? February 9th and February 16th. The February 9th minutes as submitted and the February 16th minutes as corrected. Okay. Could we do that in two separate, one separate motion? Please. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the February 9th minutes as submitted by staff. Okay, so we have a motion for the approval of the February 9th minutes. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, second by Mr. Pohl. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. And Mr. Chair, I move. We're ready? Yes. Approval of the February 16th minutes, goals and objectives as corrected. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Bell. Please vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. We've got three of them. Yep. Okay. postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon. I'm here to request postponement on two matters, the first of which is on page four, item D, MJDP 2245, Distillery District West. There are some significant technical issues on that that are still being worked on and reviewed, and we would like to postpone that one month to continue working on those items. Okay, Mr. Cato, and that's the April 13th meeting? Yes. That's the date? Okay. Thank you. Commission, any questions for this one-month postponement? If not, the floor is open. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of PLNMJDP 2245 to our April 13th meeting. Thank you. Mr. Davis, do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Bell. Please vote for your granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. I have one more on page five. It's the next item. Item E, MJDP 2279 Coleman property. Same issue, having some technical issues that are having to be worked through some ongoing discussions, and we need more time to do that before it's ready for the commission to review. Another month. Thank you. And that's a one-month postponement, Mr. Cato? Yes. Thank you. The floor is open. Mr. Davis? Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone PLNMJDP 2279 to our April 13th meeting. Thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Cato. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, Mark McCame, Vision Engineering, I want to bring your attention to page 9, PLNMJDP 23-00012, Melrose Edition. Page 8. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. Page 8. Page 8. Looking at the wrong thing. I'd like to postpone this for two weeks to the March 23rd meeting. And your reason? We need to get the sign up. The sign didn't go up in the required amount of time. All right. Thank you. Okay, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for a postponement to March 23rd meeting for MJDP 2312. Mount Rose edition is requested by the applicant. It's two weeks. Oh, that's right. As you said, March. I got wrong month. All right, we have a motion. Second. Second by Ms. Barstead. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Plan FRP 23-00005 on page 2, top of page 2. We'd request a 30-day postponement in order to get the proper notification out. Sign needs to go up. April 13th. All right, thank you, sir. The floor is open for a motion for a one-month postponement. Yes. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Second by Ms. Boxdale. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. It's that time. All right, staff. Do we have any more postponements? Mr. Martin does, I believe. I have one for you. Okay, sir. On page two of your agenda, at the bottom of the page, item A, Major Development Plan 18-04, triple stars property. staff has communicated with the owners of this property, and they've requested a two-month postponement. They believe they need an additional two months. You can see by the original number assigned to this plan, 2004, it needs a significant redesign. These gentlemen are not developers by profession, And they're still working to find a professional to help them to redesign the property to meet some of our new requirements. We know that date. Forrester, yes, it's May the 11th. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, the floor is open. We motion for two months postponement. Mr. Pol. Mr. Chair, move to postpone PLN MJDP 18-4. Until the May 11th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. All right, Ms. Wade. Yes, thank you, Chairman Forster. We do have a number of items that appear on our consent agenda this afternoon. One subdivision item now due to the one postponement and then seven development plans. And we will read through those and if the planning commission wishes, we can consider all of those in one motion for conditional approval. As long as there's no one in the audience or a commission member that wishes to have an item removed from the consent agenda. So we'll get started here. The first item does appear on page two of your agenda, item B, again, because we postponed our first item, PLN FRP 23-6 for Shropshire and Ross Holdings, LLC. And this is for property located at 5487 Ware Road. And because it's in the agricultural area of our county, the applicant has posted a sign, and they've provided the affidavit of that to our staff. The next item on the consent agenda is a development plan. It appears on page 4. Item C, PLN MJDP 21-39. This is a re-approval request for LFUCG Mill Creek Subdivision Unit 3 and Jonestown, property located at 1100 Armstrong Mill Road. And just for reference, the subdivision committee did add one condition that was different from the last time this was approved by the commission, and that was related to meeting the new requirements of Article 16. Continuing on the consent agenda, page 6, item F, PLNMJDP 23-4 for Joyce Fields property, lot E. That's for property at 721 Red Mile Road. The next item is on page 6, item G, PLN MJDP 23-5 for Hart Properties, also known as Greenbrier Estates, Unit 2J, Lots 4 and 5. And similar to the other item in the expansion area, there is a requirement for a signposting, so the applicant has provided that affidavit. And I just would note there is an additional memo related to that particular plan and EAMP compliance. Next item on the consent agenda, page 7, item H, PLNMJDP 23-6 for Hamburg Place Farm. lot 5C, Plotted Place, and that's the development plan for Gordon Food Service, located at 1856, Plotted Place. The next item is on page 7, item I, PLN MJDP 23-7 for Candia Corporation, also known as Legion Drive Apartments, and that's for property located at 340 Legion Drive. The next item also on page 7 is item J, PLN MJDP 23-9 for Griffin Gate Service Center, Coleman property, and that's the location for the Clarion Hotel, an amended development plan for 1950 Newtown Pike, as well as 1475 Coleman Court. And then the last item on the consent agenda today appears on page 8. It's item K, PLN MJDP 23-10 for Cowgill Real Estate Property, location of McDonald's at 768 Winchester Road. And again, the Planning Commission can consider all of these items that I read aloud if there's no one in the audience that wishes to have them heard or if there's one that the commission wishes to be heard, we can also present that. Okay, all right, thank you. So the floor is open for a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Polk. So moved. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Bell. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, Senate agenda passes. And before we move forward, I do like to get a motion from the commission to release the letter of credit and bonds. Make sure we get that before we get deep into this. Performance bonds and letter of credits. The floor is open for a motion to accept. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the bonds and credit, letters of credit as presented by staff today. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Bell. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. So put us on page 3, PLNMJDP 2074, Cherokee Park. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I was waiting for that eye contact to make sure you – We are indeed on page three of your agenda, Major Development Plan 20-74. We also pass out to you on this lovely lavender paper, revised conditions for this particular plan. as we did receive a revised plan. Again, this is a final development plan, and I'm going to jump forward to the area real quick. This is for property located on Nicholasville Road, Cherokee Park, and Suburban Court. It's these three properties. There's an existing apartment building here, two houses here with multiple rental units within these two houses. This is a gray lodge, an old boarding house, keeping in the tradition. There used to be a lot of boarding houses along our arterials and along Nicholasville Road. There were several. Again, suburban court, Cherokee Park, Nicholasville Road, and of course Central Baptist Hospital is across the street. The property in question, as I mentioned, are these lots that you can see. Here is the long deep lot. That's the existing apartment building. There are two lots in here where the two existing houses currently sit. They will be removed in an apartment building added here. This will be an addition to this building to create one building. They're adding units. There will be a total of 41 units, 41 bedrooms on the property. They're proposing 42 parking spaces, as you can see. These are existing in this area, in the rear of this existing apartment building. On the aerial, if you noticed where the houses sit, there's a lot of pavement in the back where people park now that rent units in those buildings. The applicant is proposing, again, two access points. There's currently three, one for each lot. They'll have two. They'll be able to come in, and this had an impact on this development. We had a lot of discussions about the layout with the applicant and how it would function. And in order to get solid waste in and get the turn and get to the dumpster, as well as the fire department, and they use auto turn to get fire department movement through here, they have tried to maintain this loop and put the parking here in the interior. This section will meet the new standards in terms of the landscaping that's required under Article 16. And again, you can see the perimeter. They'll have to meet Article 18. They've added access points into the front of the buildings. That is advantageous on several fronts. One, they have to under Article 15 for infill and redevelopment. It also helps them in complying with the Nicholasville Road plan that was prepared and adopted by this group for orientation and development along Nicholasville Road. But it also helped them right here because with the existing building, if they had maintained new entrances into the addition, it kicked in a very prohibitive side yard setback, which they could not meet on this particular property. So by having their main entrance through the front has satisfied a lot of issues that they were looking at on this particular property. Now, this is R4. It's zoned. This property was rezoned, part of it, in 1968, another part in 1972. The Long Deep property where this building was built in 1961 was rezoned as part of the rezoning of the community. It's comprehensive rezoning that took place in the 70s. So, again, this is a by-right development on R4 property. As I stated, they're proposing 41 bedrooms, 41 units. Their lot coverage is 10,100 and I believe 57 square feet. This is well under the maximum for the R4. The same is true with their FAR, their floor area ratio. They're going to have 30,471 total square feet. These are three-story buildings, 38 feet in height. The zone would allow 40. They're going 38. So they're well within the parameters established for R4. There's good reasons for that because they have to have parking. They have to have open space. Their numbers indicate they meet the open space through balconies primarily. They're with a half a mile of the Arboretum, which is public open space, which under our new regs helps development when they're within closer proximity of public open space, as well as the front yards. The front yards are now acceptable open space. They weren't for many years. And interesting enough, in a lot of developments, that was the largest area of green space, was a nice big front yard that people could actually use. And certainly, this is a good example of that when you can see the demand with the existing parking and the need to provide the parking. And again, it's 42 spaces for 41 units, so it's not a situation that we would consider to be over-parked. The urban forester went out and met on the site. These older sites tend to have trees. Went out and took a look. There were two oak trees on the property. One is in this location. The other one is right in here in this island right there. I'm bouncing around a lot, but it's right in there. It appears that this tree is going to have to go to accommodate the parking in the building. They are attempting to preserve this tree. Now, there's not a lot of green island around that tree, and they could do a better job, in staff's estimation, of providing a little more green around that tree. It's currently there. As I said, there's currently a driveway back through there. So the root zone has already been impacted by the development, by the movement of traffic back and forth across it. But they are attempting to save it. They, their preservation plan states that they intend to meet the canopy requirement with all new trees. So there's a benefit with saving this tree as well as planting to meet the requirement with new trees. So we're going to have a better canopy in the future than what we have at this time. In addition with this development, I mentioned the Nicholasville Road Plan. The need for future rapid transit has been discussed. I know you all have heard that in the need. They're going to have to file a record plat to modify this property. There's three lots. Interesting enough, Cherokee Park, and this lot's part of Cherokee Park. These lots are part of suburban court. This entire area was platted between 1919 and 1928. It's really an older pre-World War II expansion, a suburban area of our community. They're going to consolidate these two lots into one, maintain this lot as it is. But again, there's a benefit to them. They don't have to meet group residential. They can just have to meet our four requirements. Again group residential, there's bigger setbacks, 20 feet around the entire perimeter, not very conducive in an infill redevelopment situation. And again, they are in the infill and redevelopment area. So they do have to meet some of those architectural requirements. They're not honest in any way in terms of, again, their orientation, the front of the building, the type of opening they have to have, opacity of windows, and that front wall plane is what they'll have to accommodate in these buildings. Let's see. There's been, again, they're going to reduce the number of driveways from three to two, which is an improvement certainly. There's been a lot of discussion. Again, here's the area. We can see it. And over the years, and we know the neighbors are concerned in this area with drainage issues. Well, 19 to 1928, they had very different standards. They didn't develop as extensive a system in their subdivisions as we do today. This development will have to meet the engineering manuals. They're going to meet it. They have to. And they're not allowed to make any situation worse. So they will have to deal with stormwater on their property. And they're aware of that, and they know, and they've been working and talking to engineering about how to do that, how to meet those challenges. This is a map that shows the stormwater facilities that exist in this area of our community. Here we are. Right up in here. There's Cherokee Park. This is the problem. The stormwater runs behind it, as does the sanitary sewer, by the way. That's where it runs. What's interesting, if you look at these older neighborhoods developed in the 20s, this one has the most extensive system. We've had, this is, drawing a blank, shoot. We're going to have to shoot. We had some drainage issues right here that have been solved. interesting enough one of the reasons they were sought goodrich there you go goodrich betla 1920s thank you i knew it when the uh hotel was developed they discovered a stormwater facility was crushed busted broken boom they they fixed it through private development and that that really helped issues in this area they had fighting issues up and down goodrich In fact, the government bought properties in the rear by the railroad track because of the flooding issues. So again, these are stormwater issues that are a result of how things were done in the 1920s and over time. So this development will have to meet the new standards and accommodate their stormwater runoff. As an example of that, this is Hunter Presbyterian Church. It's hard to see, but there's a little yellow square right there. It represents a drainage facility. That was done by Hunter Presbyterian when they had to go to Board of Adjustment and get more parking. And when they went to the Board of Adjustment, they were reviewed. They had to meet stormwater requirements, so they actually improved the area as well. Another good example of that, Central Baptist Hospital. You can see a tremendous amount of stormwater facilities on that property. That's not how it started. It's grown. They've had additions. and so they've had to address stormwater. So again, I want the Planning Commission to be fully aware that this development will meet the stormwater requirements of the manuals and address the issue to the best of their ability and to the limits that they will be required to do so. The traffic, again, is always an issue, we know, with our community. This plan meets the intent of our comprehensive plan, our intent to increase density along our arterials. That's what they're doing, and that does meet that intent of our comprehensive plan. And yes, there will be some traffic associated with this development, but again, it's not over parked, 42 units. It is an increase over the total number of units that are there now, but not a significant increase. We share concerns about trees. I mentioned the trees. The simple fact is we don't have a tree ordinance that addresses trees on private property unless there is development. And when there is development, then this body can put protections on trees. Until that time, a private property owner can go on that property and then cut down every tree they want. The only exception being street trees, where they exist and where they've been approved, where they're in the right-of-way, or they're in an easement for that purpose. And no doubt after the events that we've all been through the last few days with the windstorm, we're liable to see some people out there cutting down some trees. We lost a lot in my neighborhood. It's always a shame. But again, my point is private property, people can cut down their trees. But through redevelopment, when we get a chance to consider it, we can talk about the trees, we can impose conditions if we deem they're appropriate. I just wanted to stress that with you because, again, we understand. We do understand how our community feels about trees, and they're concerned about the loss of trees. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? Let's pull. Do you know what the current number of units on the site? I believe there's eight in this building, and honestly I'm not sure the total in the two houses. I know there's several. I'd hesitate to give you an exact number, because I don't know, Graham. I believe there's probably four in each of those houses. But that's an estimate on my part. I didn't look it up. And do you know the mix of single-family versus one-bedroom versus two-bedroom? I believe the applicant could probably answer that for you better than I could. Any more questions for staff? I've seen any. Thank you, Tom. Okay. Mrs. Simpson? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. As you may recall, Steve Perry was the principal for this particular company. Unfortunately, Steve passed away a few months ago and his son James is picking up for the family. And James is here today with respect to this plan, which has had a great deal of review and work with the planning staff. We also had a neighborhood meeting last week. I wasn't able to attend, but West Hardin, my partner was, along with Rory Cayley and James Perry. As you know, on development plans, there's nothing in the comp plan that requires or the ordinance requires such a meeting. But I've always found it a better practice to meet with neighbors relative to zoning or a development plan or even a plat. simply to make sure that everybody's informed and has the opportunity to be heard, even if they have an opinion that's contrary to the one that we seek to advance. As you know, this is on a corridor. The property, as Tom pointed out, is zoned. It's been zoned for over 50 years. The reason that's important, of course, is that when a homeowner comes in to buy a piece of property and they want to check out the current zoning of nearby land, they can find it. You can get on the PVA website or planning website and find out what the current zoning is for nearby properties. So the zoning has been done. And the reason that's important, of course, we're at the subdivision committee. This is a development plan, not a zone change. And the standard that is attached on reviewing a development plan is basically a ministerial review. In other words, does the development plan comply with the applicable zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and ultimately the engineering manuals. And up to this point, of course, we do have staff recommendation of approval with respect to those compliance matters. And we had subdivision committee approval that's before you today on those matters. But the review is still not over. You will note there are a number of conditions attached to approval of this plan, as there are in every development plan that you all approve. And those conditions mean that this plan has to go another level of heightened scrutiny, if you will, with respect to the nuts and bolts of stormwater, screening, buffering, trying to save a chinkapin tree that's there as well as other trees. Those usually come about in the construction plan phase to see how it's all going to lay out. And the government is open to inquiry from citizens with respect to these what are often called sign-offs. Once you all approve a development plan, as the plan goes through the sign-off process, the public is free to find out what information is being provided by the applicant, whether they want to challenge that information, object to it, or what have you. So planning and zoning from the standpoint of public decision making and governmental decision making, more so than any other government action, at least in my experience, from start until the dirt gets approved for moving dirt once that decision is made by the government. All of the decisions, the records, the communication is open for the public to review, comment about, meet with the staff on. And so your all's approval today will go continue through that same process that is available and has to be complied with on every development plan. I say that because sometimes we lose sight of the review that takes place on these projects and they're extensive. and they take a long time to filter through the system so that the people in charge with regulating land development can place their final footprint, their final thumbprint, I should say, of approval, or if corrections have to be made to get that approval. As I mentioned, the tree, there is a chinkapen tree there that we'd like to save. We'd like to save as many trees as possible and still, of course, have the project because trees enhance marketability. They attract good tenants. People like trees. We like trees. But we have competing values, of course, in that certainly since 2018 and even before that in previous comprehensive plans, But especially on 2018, as I've witnessed in some instances painfully because I've had applicants that came before you for approval recently where it was commercial properties, but they weren't dense enough. The floor area ratio of the building in relation to the lot was not in conformance with what the staff viewed as the amount that needed to be increased to comply with the comprehensive plan's direction to increase density along the corridor, particularly residential density. That is probably one of the, in my judgment, ten critical themes of the 2018 plan is when it comes to implementing the plan, which you're doing in part today, is increasing density, residential density along the corridors. And this is one of those efforts to implement the 2018 plan. And we're pleased, of course, that the planning staff has found it to be acceptable and approvable and has so recommended it. Of course, with any change in land use, the nearby property owners have a right to be concerned. and you'll be hearing from those folks this afternoon as you should. Concerned about traffic impact, concerned about parking, concerned about stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff takes a lot of time to get approved. Plans have to be submitted, reviewed, critiqued, changes are made. the detention basin that will be installed on this property to comply with the requirement that the post-development runoff rate will not exceed the pre-development runoff rate will be an underground storage. So there won't be a visible detention basin that you see in many subdivisions. Underground storage is much more expensive. but typically it's a more aesthetic improvement, if you will, from adjoining homes not to have to be able to see a big, sometimes exceedingly large bomb crater type of detention basin to deal with the stormwater. We're proposing to deal with our storm water underground so it won't be that kind of outside large detention basin that you typically see. It's going to be a nice project. It will compliment the existing residential units nearby. There were two houses that had residents that were rental, and we're increasing the density with this project to be consistent with the aspirations of the 2018 plan and the market. People are looking for apartments along corridors. The comp plan recognizes that and encourages that, as you all have heard many times when you adopted your plan and in the zone changes that have been filed since the 2018 plan. was approved by this body and the goals and objectives by the council. Roy Caley is here with EA Partners to respond to any specific questions that you may have relative to any of the technical aspects of the plan, parking, screenering, buffering, stormwater management. Again, that's typically a number of months in process to be evaluated and reviewed. It is a transparent project. the citizens can find out how it's being considered is everything being considered are you all going to protect my property and your approval of what's finally determined in this sign off process these conditions of approval citizens have a right to be informed about the reasoning and decisions ultimately on whether it's going to be approved or not and that's all to the good that's how development should be Obviously, if this level of scrutiny had taken place back in the 30s and 40s and 50s, 60s and 70s, a lot of the problems that we have now wouldn't exist. But I've seen the transition, particularly in the last 20 years, on the sign-off process and the scrutiny that's employed to make sure that development does not have an adverse impact on adjacent property owners, that that mission is fulfilled. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Rory is here to respond to any details. He drew up the plan. He's the most knowledgeable person about it. But in light of the staff recommendation of approval and the subdivision committee recommendation of approval, we'll ask for the full body's approval of this plan as well. And thank you for your attention. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Any commission member has any questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Okay, this is time for citizens comments. Do any citizens that would like to speak? You can do so by stepping up to the podium. Yes, and then we will have the three minute clock. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak today. My name is Tom Stevens. I'm a property owner. I live relatively close to the proposed development. I'm also a landlord. And so I certainly appreciate and respect these individuals' rights to do something positive with their property and to develop it. I'm also very cognizant of the need in Fayette County for more infill development. It's something we talk about all the time and the natural challenge we have with our border. There is one issue, and I know some of my neighbors have other concerns they'd like to talk about today, but the one issue I just want to address is specifically with respect to the parking situation. As this is laid out, and I did appreciate the opportunity to their credit, Mr. Simpson referenced this. We were, there was a neighborhood meeting, a few of us showed up, went in there, had an opportunity to look at the plans, and the thing that immediately jumped out was the ratio of parking to the units. And it's roughly one to one. I think it's 42 units to 43 parking spaces or 41 to 42, something like that. And I would suggest to the members of this panel that it's simply too dense for that area. There are going to be more than one person in a lot of these individual units. And as a result of that, whether it's husband and wives or boyfriends and girlfriends, those cars are going to have to go someplace. We are not living in Norton Commons here. The closest grocery store is about, well, the closest Kroger store is about a mile away. The closest drugstore is some distance away. This is not an area that at this point in time, at least, is really conducive to a walking environment. As a result, there are going to be cars, and those cars are going to go someplace else. In the two most natural spots, the folks in the audience couldn't see the map, but when that's pulled back up, you have Cherokee Park to the north, and to the south, you immediately have Suburban Court. There's no parking available on Nicholasville Road, and I think that's going to be a problem. I would suggest, with all due respect, that while this may adhere to a number of different bellwethers, that it deserves reconsideration on that specific point because it's simply too dense. That ratio, I don't believe, makes sense. It's going to be problematic, and those cars are going to go someplace. I would add, too, I'm not sure what the specific situation is with Cherokee Park at this point, but the other available parking option is Suburban Court, which just a few years ago, half of that parking was eliminated by public safety because the street is too narrow to accommodate parking on both sides of the road. So you can imagine what this is going to be like with football games and other activities there and the challenges that I'll present. So I appreciate the opportunity to be here, subject to your questions. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to make a brief statement. I am also a resident of this neighborhood in question. I'll start out by saying. Excuse me sir. Can you state your name? Aptly pointed out that this is still under review. Can you state your name? I'm sorry. My name is Jerry Gillespie. Thank you. I live on Penn Moken Park. Good. Again, as Mr. Simpson pointed out, this is still under review before final approval. And we want to express, as my neighbor just did, I'm not here to just present a contrary point to bullet points that you brought up, for example, but I'm going to. As a resident, we are not satisfied with this proposal in its current state. I'm going to repeat some points. The reason being primarily we feel the likelihood due to past experience in other developments in our neighborhood and difficulties with developers, attorneys, and city government members and development plans that were altered and or adjusted along the way that ended up being a completely different end product than the original proposal. We don't want that to happen again, and it's already possibly headed in that direction. I don't have facts and figures as far as setback, elevation, things like this. I just have common sense logic. As my neighbor pointed out, common sense will tell you that the parking is not going to work as appointed in this proposal. It's just not going to do it. The residents of suburban court are going to receive any and all parking overflow. Again, it's already stretched to the limit. You start adding that, again, on game days, it's already pretty ridiculous. on several streets, including the one that I live on, which is a few streets away from suburban court. So the traffic problem, this is already an extreme traffic area right across from Central Baptist. It's right next to a main intersection. So the traffic situation is obviously something that's going to take a little bit further consideration. I feel that the traffic is not only the situation. It's going to be a situation as far as water runoff. As has been pointed out, this is historically a bad area. As some of you will remember, a few short years ago, two women actually lost their lives due to flooding and water problems in this area. That particular instance has been fixed. Well, historically, it's always been an issue, as pointed out with Central Baptist, with Hunter Presbyterian. Yes. Okay, I'll wrap up. Again, I'll close with this thought. We're not opposed to development. We just want it done in an intelligent and a well-planned way. That's basically my statement. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Seeing anyone else? Okay, Mr. Simpson. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate the comments that have been made relative from the neighbors. This is how I got involved in planning zoning back in 1988. I didn't know there was such a thing as a master bedroom next to a master bathroom until a friend of mine told me I needed to move on up because I was a quote-unquote lawyer and I was happy where I was off Weybridge Court and bought up a corner lot backed up to a horse farm on a dead end street. Two weeks later I get a notice from the web companies. They're proposing Palomar Center which is 300,000 square feet. The horse farm was 12 acres owned by two developers who were land banking for apartments and the dead end street was called a stub street that was planned to be connected up to the apartments and on into the shopping center. And I'm like, what in the world? It ate me alive. I didn't want the change. I wanted it to be like it was. I organized some neighbors. We worked with the web companies. Shopping center went in. The Stub Street did get closed over major staff objection, I might add. But change is what we are about. And for existing property owners who've been there a while, it is a challenge because you get comfortable with where you are and what's around you. I fully appreciate that from a personal experience because one's home is critical and they want to keep things as they are. However, we also have our comprehensive plan. And that plan reflects certain community values that emerge from lengthy meetings with citizens over a two-year process, public hearings before this body and the Urban County Council, because Lexington has grown every year. Every year it grows. People want to come and live here. Where are they going to be? We haven't added any land since 1996. None. And if you read the plan, since 96, everything has encouraged more density in development. That means more impact to existing neighborhoods. On parcels of land like this that developers would never touch because they were going to have fights. And it was easier to go in the suburbs where there was nobody there and get all the suburban development approved with little to no objection. Times are different now, and this community made a decision more than 20 years ago to increase density. And if you don't have the right kind of density, I can tell you from personal experience in representing clients with respect to securing staff approval, as you well know, I've not gotten that recommendation of approval because we weren't dense enough. So there's a trade-off, and the reality is, for people that live in existing neighborhoods, proposed land use changes will be more dense. We will have more traffic because we're going to have more people, and we're going to have longer delays. And those are consequences that were accepted when these values were incorporated into land use policy that this body adopted starting about 20 years ago and has reaffirmed in every plan since and the ordinances and the subregs and the engineering manuals. And that's been the determination. We have set a policy here for over 20 years that we're going to preserve the rural landscape. That's the highest priority with respect to land use. After that, we want infill development to be more dense. We want to grow up and not out. But we want to do so safely, as safely as we can with respect to managing the given consequences of every land use change, stormwater increase, traffic increase, screening and buffering, and all at the same time increasing density. particularly on the corridors, along this corridor, walk to it, ride a bike to it, or take a bus. That is the incentive. Those are the incentive aspirational values that are incorporated in the 2018 plan. Now, on a case-by-case basis, reserve the right to object because I think some property that needs to be developed more intensely, it's not practical. You've heard me argue that. And I haven't been successful before this body. And I accept your decision. But this plan complies with the comp plan. It complies with the spirit of the comp plan. The process of evaluation and review is not over. and I can tell you from personal experiences dating back to 1988 when I got the web company's notice of a zone change, I was at every single review of the development plan for 18 months, and I had complete cooperation with the government employees that worked there informed me about everything. Changes were made because of our involvement and our scrutiny. The same still holds true today. That's a compliment to our staff and to the mayor, the council, and to you. Thank you. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Bill has a question. Always enjoy hearing your thoughts. Just curious, do you still live in that same home? I would bring up a country song, something to the effect about a divorce. Oh. All right. Sorry. But being it's on Channel 3, I won't torture you with my singing. Okay. Well, thank you. I was just wondering how you were managing since then. So thank you so much. The answer is no. Okay. But she still loves it, I can tell you. Good honor to adapt. Mr. Simpson, Mr. Pohl has a question. Do you know the approximate vacancy rate that's expected in a complex like this? James, can you come up? Do you hear the question? Typically, we expect about 5%. Get up to the microphone. Just tell me. James Perry, we expect about 5% vacancy. Thank you. Seeing any other questions, thank you. Mr. Gillespie, do you have anything to rebut? Okay, all right. That being said, I'm bringing it back to the commission for any further questions or comments. i don't think staff has anything i do you do yes sorry chairman forrester um i would just reiterate um that the comprehensive plan is not what we're evaluating the development plan against today and i believe mr martin brought it up and so did did mr simpson but again we're evaluating it against the regulations that are in place today. And one of the things that the commission can do is alter the parking because there are no parking standards today. But you can also increase land around the tree that needs to be protected. You can adjust setbacks per the land use plan that's been adopted for the area. So the commission does still have quite a bit of authority in terms of evaluating this plan, and not everything is left to sign-offs. So, I mean, Mr. Simpson talked a lot about sign-offs, and they are important. But that doesn't take away from the commission's review of an application. I could bring it back now. Thank you. Mr. Bell. I'd like to make a motion. Yes, sir. Move for approval of PLN MJDP 2074 Cherokee Park subdivision lot one and two. Suburban court subdivision block A, lots one and two with the 15 revised conditions. Okay, we have a motion. Mr. Bell, do we have a second? a second okay yes second mr davis all in favor excuse me before do we can we have a discussion yes uh thank you so obviously this is what we've been looking for right on on the arterial um i i do have a little concern about the parking i don't think it's that many spaces uh to be concerned about but if there already is a serious parking problem in the adjacent streets one can imagine that if half of these units are occupied by more than one person that each of whom is driving a vehicle you're going to have some spillover so i'm concerned about that I also think it would be worthwhile to attempt to take some action to help preserve that large tree that's on the property, whether that is requiring review by an arborist and recommendations regarding the surface under the drip edge. Maybe that's what we do, something like that. but I think it'd be worthwhile to encourage that. I'm curious to see what you all are thinking about with regard to the parking. Bill, do you have any? Yeah, I made the motion. I guess I'm going on the faith of them knowing more about the development and such like that and just not really knowing a solution, particularly without throwing off the entire development, personally. And I think with regard to the tree, I believe they're sensitive to that themselves. So I just kept it simple, because I just don't have a solution. And I believe they're sensitive to all these things personally. And that's just my, that's the reason I made the motion, simply like that. So I'm a little concerned about the parking as well. but I'm just not sure what do we do about it. Because really going forward, any other developments we have, we're going to, you know, if we're going to a one-to-one ratio, it's going to be a concern because there's very few houses, you know, that have one driver and one car. You know, I don't know how, you know, with this being in the university area, if that will attract people who want to rely on public transportation or other forms of transportation other than having their own cars. But I'm just wondering how, you know, this is always going to be a question, and I guess we just wait and see how it plays out. Ms. Worth. This is a question for you, Mr. Graham, because I'm not an architect, and my visual imagination is not very good. is it possible to envision increased parking in this area without doing damage to the plan in front of us and still keep the service vehicles moving i mean it doesn't look like it to me it looks like it's it looks like it's pretty close to being parked maximally to my eye You know, we've had so many discussions about this, and we have made the decision to move forward with a policy that suggests that the individual developer, to some extent, is responsible providing parking that makes their development work, right? and if there isn't enough parking then ultimately that's going to hurt the development but we also in a case like this we've got neighbors who could be hurt by spillover and I suppose they could protect their their neighborhood by requiring a parking permit as is done in a lot of other neighborhoods so that you have to have a residence on the street to or be a guest of a resident on the street to park on the street i don't know i don't know how much we want to discuss this but i suspect it's going to be coming up over and over again as we go forward thank you sir okay so um there's any more discussion And we can carry on with the motion and the second that was on the floor. The second was by Mr. Davis, correct? Okay, so we can vote via Granicus. Okay, motion, we got everyone? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And it's off to put us on page nine, the commission items. Mr. Chairman, may we have, just while we're here in this moment, would staff like to comment on our discussion as to any suggestions with regard to parking and things like that that we discuss, any guidance that y'all might provide or anything like that? Thank you. Thank you. I don't know if that's a work session thing. Mr. Bell, while Mr. Martin is getting his thoughts together, I just wanted to remind you that when we had parking requirements, and it wasn't that long ago that we did, that it was one space per dwelling unit. So a single family house. For apartments, it was one and a half. I'm sorry, one space per single family dwelling unit. So a single family dwelling unit could have three, four, or five bedrooms. it was only one space required. So that's the equivalent. These are, if you're looking at one bedroom units, you know, you're looking at less living space than most single family houses are. And what is being provided is the same as what was previously provided for a single family house. So while the standards for apartments were different, that was, we We saw that as a real problem, that single family houses didn't have to provide any more parking than one unit per four, five, three, four, five bedroom house. And so these apartments with one bedrooms each are providing the same parking that the previous single family houses had to provide. That's helpful, thank you. I was going to point out that now that we've gone to a parking situation where it's market based and the applicant comes in to justify their parking, and I think Graham touched on this, it's a management issue for them and incumbent on them to manage their parking. And certainly this development needs to manage their parking. And there's ways to do that. They could put it in the lease. You get one car, you get one space. Now that may push parking out into neighborhoods. It does. And again, there's mechanisms. The council actually has the authority over the right of way to establish where you have to have a parking permit in that neighborhood, that sort of thing. The police certainly should do their job and go out and ticket cars and have them towed if they're parked illegally. So it's a management issue. And yes, it always has been frankly with parking. But you all certainly have the right to ask these developers when they come in with the parking, how are you going to manage your parking? So those were my thoughts on it. It's a management issue, and it's what we're trying to emphasize now. And with that, we'll move on, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, we are headed to commission items. This is item A. It's a petition for a waiver of the land subdivision regulations. You all saw this before. I'm not getting anywhere all of a sudden. Oh, there we go. I am not, this is Warrington Woods. It is out off Chenowee Drive, kind of runs down parallel to Alumni. It's an interior development. There is one way in. It's the only way there is into this development. It's a somewhat older development, very large lots. It was developed with a vision of being kind of rural in character and they built their streets. There were private streets. They weren't built to standards when they were built. Subsequently, they came in and they asked the government to take them over as public streets. The council agreed, told them to go through the CAO process in 2004. They never completed that process. They reinitiated the process, and that's when we brought it to you back, I believe, in June, July, and reviewed the waiver request at that time. they didn't want to do any improvements to the street, basically. So staff went out there, we walked the site, looked at things, talked with the applicants, actually with the council member, and with their engineer, I believe, at the time. And we determined that a reasonable compromise was at least to build one sidewalk on one side of those streets. So we recommended to you an approval of the waiver subject to that condition. Again, the neighborhood did not want to do that. They went to council. Council agreed. Council is going to accept the streets without any sidewalk requirements. So they came back, and they're here before you today to revisit this waiver. And, again, I was just going to show you, here they are. These are the plats. These are the areas, the streets that we're talking about in this neighborhood. And so the waiver you have before you, they had several conditions that they presented to the council reasons for why they didn't feel that these improvements to sidewalk was necessary. Staff revisited those in the waiver review. There's some that have no bearing whatsoever under your land subdivision regulations and under your rules. Cost is one of those. We would never present a waiver to you and say it was justified by cost. It's based on man-made or physical features of the property. Well, there is some credence to the applicant's position that these sidewalks were going to be affected by the topography. There's some steep streets out here. They slope quite a bit in this area, kind of up on a hill and they drop over. Sidewalks would interfere with existing vegetation, mature vegetation and possibly some trees. So when staff revisited those circumstances, we felt like that that did meet your hardship standard under your subdivision regs and are recommending approval of the waiver to you today. All right, thank you. Any questions? Do we need, applicant need to step up, excuse me. Well, that was going in a question for Tom. You go ahead first, because this question was my question. Just a procedural question. So we passed it requiring the sidewalks and it went to city council and they pulled the sidewalk issue out and approved it. And we're hearing it again? Yes. It's part of the CAO process that the waiver is brought to you. And they did that before. You approved our recommendation with the compromise of a sidewalk. Council does not want to accept the streets with that. We have conflicting approval. Right. Approvals. And so council ultimately is the authority that accepts those roads. But we're in a bit of a conundrum because Mr. Duncan can't sign a plat that doesn't match the Planning Commission's approval. So even though the council overrode you, it's his responsibility in terms of KRS to sign it per the planning commission's action. So in order to make those two things align, we are back before you to ask that you waive the sidewalks on the one side so that they can get their plat certified and the city ultimately can accept the road. Okay. I haven't seen it before. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Martin, in this case, who is the petitioner? The neighborhood itself. So like the Neighborhood Association? Yes. Okay, thank you. All right. And also, just to bring it back, do we need a neighborhood to make a comment? Is that, because this is the first time this has come up, I think, since we've been here. Okay. All right, then that's fine. He's up there. I don't want to take Mr. Woodall's time. I'll be short, but brief, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, John Woodall on behalf of the Warrington Woods Neighborhood Association, Trudy Tibbs, our president, is here with me. And to respond directly to Commissioner DeMoglin's question, when this got to the council or came out of the planning commission and the sidewalk condition was added on, And that wasn't, I hadn't been involved up to that point, but it wasn't something that the neighborhood was expecting. I grew up in this neighborhood. It's kind of literally, as you know, actually have gone from the kid riding his bicycle to the teenager driving a car to the young parent moving in with small children playing in our neighborhood and in the roadside and all that other stuff. to the parent of the teenagers to, I guess, wherever we're going to go from here. But our neighborhood's 40 years old or so. We have wide streets. They're not through streets. I mean, this was originally part of Dr. Warren's farm that was developed. It is heavily wooded. Several of the lots of my neighbors are enrolling in topography. to install sidewalks just wouldn't have made any sense in our neighborhood whatsoever. During COVID, we had a lot of folks using the neighborhood that didn't live in our neighborhood. It's just a great place to walk, run, or bike because you can cut through or you can get some extra distance out of it. You don't have to worry about anybody running over you. And that's going to be the fact whether there's sidewalks or not. So the cost of the sidewalks is just prohibitive. Cost prohibitive. It'd be a lot different than trying to install a sidewalk in a new subdivision. Here, there would be a lot of demolition involved, a lot of adverse effect on the lots. Procedurally, this is an anomaly, as the way he's explained to me. so as opposed to banging our fist on the table and saying, well, the council has spoken. We just wanted to come back and make it easy on everybody and do what staff asked of us and have you all sign off on this so we can put it to bed. That was the reason for the request, and our entire neighborhood was at the council meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Any questions? Mr. Woodall? I'm not seeing any. Thank you, sir. Mr. Davis, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the waiver of the land subdivision regulations for PLN FRP 2213, 2215, 2217, and 2218. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Ms. Wirth. We'll have to get you a new screen there. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. I see you on the baseball field, Mr. Woodall. Well, I'm retired. I know you are, that's why I know you're coming. All of you now. Mr. Duncan? Bring me some some sunflower seeds, okay? There you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll see you all again next Thursday, March 16th, in the third floor of Phoenix for your monthly work session. Thank you.