# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - November 9, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 9, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5959 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5959?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-11-09 - **Last revised**: November 9, 2023 - **Length**: 6,407 words - **Speakers**: C, Ir, Chair, Cir > ⚠️ **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 November 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 Zach Davis presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed five main agenda items during the session, including approval of minutes, postponements and withdrawals, land subdivision items, commission items, and staff items. All five agenda items were approved by the commission. The meeting involved 15 motions and votes throughout the proceedings, while no public comments were heard during this session. ## Attendance The following members were present at the November 9, 2023 meeting: • Zach Davis • Janice Meyer • Graham Pohl • Ivy Barksdale • William Wilson • Bruce Nicol Four members were absent from the meeting: • Forester • Michler • Worth • Owens No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on 15 items during the November 9, 2023 meeting, with all votes passing unanimously with 6 members present: Zach Davis, Janice Meyer, Graham Pohl, Ivy Barksdale, William Wilson, and Bruce Nicol. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Janice Meyer motioned to approve the September 14, 2023 and October 12, 2023 minutes, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. **Postponements** The commission postponed six development projects: - **PLN-MJDP-23-00064**: BELMONT FARM (CITATION CENTRE) (AMD), motioned by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 02:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00068**: HAMBURG PLACE, B-5P & B-6P HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, OUTLOT 14 (CHIPOTLE RESTAURANT) (AMD), motioned by William Wilson, seconded by Graham Pohl [timestamp: 04:00] - **PLN-FRP-23-00019**: COLEMAN PROPERTY (CLARION CONVENTION CENTER) (AMD) - indefinite postponement, motioned by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 06:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00059**: COLEMAN PROPERTY (NEWTOWN PIKE HAMPTON INN & SUITES) (AMD), motioned by William Wilson, seconded by Janice Meyer [timestamp: 08:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050**: WOLF RUN INDUSTRIAL PARK, BLOCK A, LOT 1 (FRANKFORT COURT STORAGE FACILITY) (AMD), motioned by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 10:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00030**: KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 1, LOT 8 (AMD), motioned by Janice Meyer, seconded by William Wilson [timestamp: 12:00] **Approvals** Four development projects were approved, all subject to conditions outlined in the agenda: - **PLN-MNDP-23-00006**: NDC PROPERTY, UNIT 1-A, LOT 21C (AMD) [timestamp: 14:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00065**: GIVENS PROPERTY, LOT 2 (LEXINGTON DENTAL OFFICE) (AMD) [timestamp: 14:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00069**: COVE LAKE, UNIT 2 (COLLINS, ORRELL, & WIGGINS PROPERTY (DF AUTOMALL) (AMD) [timestamp: 14:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00058**: KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 2, LOT 4 (AMD) [timestamp: 16:00] **Additional Actions** The commission approved **PLN-FRP-23-00026**, a waiver for WILSON SUBDIVISION, LOTS 21, 22, & 23, motioned by Graham Pohl and seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 18:00]. **PFR 2023-5**, the Public Facility Review for UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY new hospital facilities, was approved with recommendations for pedestrian improvements and parking structures, motioned by William Wilson and seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 20:00]. The commission adopted the 2024 Meeting & Filing Schedule [timestamp: 22:00] and changed the November 30, 2023 work session to a public hearing [timestamp: 24:00]. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The commission reviewed and approved minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under consideration were from the September 14, 2023 meeting and the October 12, 2023 meeting. Key speakers during this discussion included Janice Meyer and Graham Pohl, who participated in the review process of the meeting records. The commission proceeded with the standard approval process for both sets of minutes. Following their review and discussion, the minutes from both the September 14, 2023 and October 12, 2023 meetings were officially approved by the commission. This agenda item was completed as a routine administrative matter, allowing the commission to formally document and approve the records of their previous proceedings before moving forward with other business items. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 02:00] The meeting addressed several agenda items that required postponement or withdrawal from consideration. Key speakers during this discussion included Matt Carter, Nathan Billings, and Tony Barrett. Multiple properties and development projects were affected by these postponements: • **BELMONT FARM (CITATION CENTRE)** - postponed from current consideration • **HAMBURG PLACE** - postponed from current consideration • **COLEMAN PROPERTY** - postponed from current consideration • Additional unspecified items were also postponed The speakers discussed the reasons and procedural aspects of these postponements, though the specific rationale for each postponement was not detailed in the available materials. The postponements appeared to be administrative in nature, allowing for additional time for review, preparation, or coordination before these items could be properly considered by the body. The agenda item was ultimately approved, indicating that the postponements and withdrawals were accepted as presented. This suggests the meeting participants agreed with the need to defer consideration of these items to a future meeting date. The postponements likely affect the timeline for various development projects and property matters that were scheduled for review, requiring stakeholders and interested parties to await rescheduling of these items for future consideration. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 14:00] The commission reviewed and acted on several land subdivision matters during this agenda item. Traci Wade served as the primary speaker presenting the subdivision items to the commission. Three specific properties were discussed during this portion of the meeting: • **NDC PROPERTY** - Details of the subdivision proposal and any specific requirements or conditions were presented for commission consideration. • **GIVENS PROPERTY** - The commission reviewed the subdivision plans and associated documentation for this property. • **COVE LAKE** - This subdivision item was also brought before the commission for review and action. While the specific details of each subdivision proposal, including lot configurations, infrastructure requirements, or any conditions attached to the approvals were not detailed in the available materials, Traci Wade presented the necessary information for each property to allow the commission to make informed decisions. The commission ultimately **approved** all the land subdivision items that were presented during this agenda item. No significant concerns or objections were noted in the available documentation, suggesting the subdivision proposals met the necessary requirements and standards for approval. This agenda item represents routine subdivision review and approval processes that are typical for planning and zoning commissions, allowing for the orderly development of land within the jurisdiction's boundaries according to established subdivision regulations and standards. ## Commission Items [timestamp: 18:00] The commission addressed two primary matters during the Commission Items portion of the meeting. Key speakers included Tom Martin and Greg Smoresdag, who presented the items for consideration. The first item involved a waiver request for the WILSON SUBDIVISION. The commission reviewed the details of this waiver and ultimately approved the request, though the specific nature of the waiver and any conditions attached were not detailed in the available materials. The second matter concerned a Public Facility Review for the UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY. The commission examined this review as part of their regular oversight responsibilities for public facility developments and modifications. Both items were successfully processed during this session, with the commission approving the Wilson Subdivision waiver. The University of Kentucky Public Facility Review was completed as part of the commission's standard review procedures. The discussion and approval of these items demonstrates the commission's ongoing work in managing subdivision development requests and overseeing public facility planning within their jurisdiction. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 22:00] The commission addressed two administrative matters during the Staff Items portion of the meeting, with presentations from key staff members Traci Wade and Jim Duncan. The primary item involved the adoption of the 2024 Meeting & Filing Schedule. Staff presented the proposed calendar outlining the commission's regular meeting dates and associated filing deadlines for the upcoming year. The schedule provides advance notice to both commissioners and the public regarding when meetings will be held and when materials must be submitted for consideration. Additionally, staff requested a change to the previously scheduled November 30, 2023 work session. The commission was asked to convert this work session into a public hearing format. This change would allow for formal public input and testimony on matters that require community participation, rather than the more informal discussion format typically used in work sessions. Both items were presented as routine administrative matters necessary for the commission's operational planning and scheduling. The commission discussed the proposals and ultimately approved both the 2024 Meeting & Filing Schedule and the conversion of the November 30, 2023 work session to a public hearing format. These administrative actions ensure the commission maintains its regular meeting schedule and provides appropriate opportunities for public participation in its proceedings. The approved 2024 schedule will guide the commission's activities throughout the coming year, while the format change for the November 30 meeting addresses immediate procedural needs for that specific session. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of the September 14, 2023 and October 12, 2023 minutes - **PLN-MJDP-23-00064** — postponed (6-0): Postponement of BELMONT FARM (CITATION CENTRE) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00068** — postponed (6-0): Postponement of HAMBURG PLACE, B-5P & B-6P HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, OUTLOT 14 (CHIPOTLE RESTAURANT) (AMD) - **PLN-FRP-23-00019** — postponed (6-0): Indefinite postponement of COLEMAN PROPERTY (CLARION CONVENTION CENTER) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00059** — postponed (6-0): Postponement of COLEMAN PROPERTY (NEWTOWN PIKE HAMPTON INN & SUITES) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of WOLF RUN INDUSTRIAL PARK, BLOCK A, LOT 1 (FRANKFORT COURT STORAGE FACILITY) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00030** — postponed (6-0): Postponement of KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 1, LOT 8 (AMD) - **PLN-MNDP-23-00006** — passed (6-0): Approval of NDC PROPERTY, UNIT 1-A, LOT 21C (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00065** — passed (6-0): Approval of GIVENS PROPERTY, LOT 2 (LEXINGTON DENTAL OFFICE) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00069** — passed (6-0): Approval of COVE LAKE, UNIT 2 (COLLINS, ORRELL, & WIGGINS PROPERTY (DF AUTOMALL) (AMD) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00058** — passed (6-0): Approval of KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 2, LOT 4 (AMD) - **PLN-FRP-23-00026** — passed (6-0): Approval of waiver for WILSON SUBDIVISION, LOTS 21, 22, & 23 - **PFR 2023-5** — passed (6-0): Public Facility Review for UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY new hospital facilities - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Adoption of 2024 Meeting & Filing Schedule - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Change of November 30, 2023 work session to a public hearing --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Today is November 9th, 2023. This is the Urban County Planning Commission subdivision items meeting. First item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes from the September 14th and October 12th meetings. Do we have a motion? I'll move for approval of the September 14th, 2023 minutes and the October 12th, 2023 minutes. Thank you. Commissioner Myers, is there a second? Second. Second from Commissioner Pohl. All in favor? That motion carries unanimously. Thank you. item number three postponements and withdrawals good afternoon mr chairman members of the commission my name is matt carter with vision engineering if you turn in your agenda to page five item e pln mjdp 23-64 belmont farm citation Center we would like to postpone this to your December 14th hearing we've still got quite a bit of work to do before we can move forward with this thank you mr. Carter sir motion or any discussion mr. chair I move to postpone PLNM JDB 2364 to the December 14th meeting thank you mr. Polk second by Commissioner Barksdale Any discussion? If not, we will vote. Thank you, Mr. Carter. One more item on page 7 of your agenda. Item H, PLNMJDP23-68, Hamburg Place Farm, B5P, B6P Highway Commercial Outlaw 14, Chipotle Restaurant. I would ask one month postponement to your, again, December 14th hearing. We're working on a square footage study for the whole development. We've got issues right now where we've exceeded what's allowable, and we're trying to get a good handle on it. It's just taking more time than we expected. All righty. Thank you. Do we have a motion or any discussion? Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of PLNMJDP 23 days, 66 Hamburg Place until December the 14th. Second. 68, I'm sorry. Thank you, sir. And we had a second from Commissioner Pohl. Any discussion? If not, we will vote. That passes. Thank you. Mr. Billings. Chairman Davis and ladies and gentlemen of the commission, Nathan Billings Law Firm, I have two matters. First is on page two, item 1A, PLN FRP 23-19, the Coleman property. We'd like to move to indefinitely postpone this item. All righty, indefinite postponement. Do we have any motion or discussion? Mr. Chair, move to postpone indefinitely PLN FRP 2319 Coleman property. Thank you, sir. Is there a second? Commissioner Barksdale. Any discussion? If not, we will vote. Carries. Mr. Billings. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Number two I have is on page four of the agenda. Item 2D, PLNMJDP23-59, Coleman Property. Last week, the subdivision committee staff had recommended approval, but based on some comments from adjacent owners, they asked us to sit down and talk with them. So we've scheduled a meeting, or we're trying to schedule a meeting with them. So we want to postpone for one month to December 14th to let us have a time to have those discussions and see what we can talk through. before we come last. All righty. So one month to December 14th. Yes, sir. Is there a motion or any discussion on that? Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLNMJDP 23 days 59, Colman Property, Newtown Pike until December the 14th. Second. Thank you. Second by Commissioner Meyer. If no further discussion, we will vote. And that also carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners here on behalf of item on page 2, 2A, PLN, MJDP 23-30, Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8. I would like to ask for a one-week postponement to the November 16th meeting. All righty. one month to November 17th. One week. I'm sorry, one week to November 16th. All righty. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, I'd like to move for postponement of one week for PLNMJDP 2330 Kingston Hall Unit 1 to our November 16th meeting. All right. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Mrs. Meyer, do we have a second for Mr. Wilson? If no discussion, we'll go ahead and vote. And that also carries unanimously. Thank you, Tony. All right. If no other postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, excuse me. Yes, sir. That's quite all right. Pardon me, Mr. Martin. Staff has one item to bring to your attention. On page three of your agenda, item B, major development plan 23-50, This is the Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1, located at 2262 Frankfurt Court. We've had conversations with the applicant. They are still working on evaluating a tree. There's a significant tree on the site that is in conflict with the proposed development. They told staff they'd have it assessed. That assessment is not yet complete. They have requested a two-month postponement. on this plan which would take it into your January hearing and I haven't figured out what that date is yet. January 11th. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Martin. Is there any discussion or motion on that postponement? Mr. Pohl. So I move to postpone for two months until January 11th PLN MJDP 2350 Wolfram Industrial part block a block one thank you mr bowles there second miss commissioner barksdale any discussion if not we will vote that carries unanimously any anything else mr martin all righty and at this time do we want to discuss our consent agenda Thank you, Chairman Davis. We do have a few items today that appear on our consent agenda and can be considered by the Planning Commission with one motion and vote. And I'll read those out loud if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have any of these items removed from the consent agenda. If you'll just kind of raise your hand and I'll acknowledge you and we'll adjust the agenda accordingly. The first item is an item recommended by the subdivision committee for approval, and it's a development plan. It appears on page six of the regular agenda, item number, or letter F, PLN MNDP 23-6 for the NDC property, unit 1A, lot 21C. This is an amended final development plan that was referred to the commission for action by the staff, And it's for property located at 360 Meyer Way. Next item is on page six, item G, PLN MJDP 23-65 for the Givens property. Lot two, this is a request for a dental office. And that's an amended final development plan for property at 2317 Remington Road. And then the last item appears on page seven of our agenda. Item I, PLNMJDP 23-69 for Cove Lake, Unit 2. This is also known as the Collins, Orwell, and Wiggins property and the DF Auto Mall for Don Franklin Auto Mall. An amended final development plan, and that's for properties located at 3360 and 3380 Richmond Road. So anyone that would like to have any of these items heard today? Seeing none. Chairman Davis, we can take those all with one motion. All righty. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda? If not, we will certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. Second. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Any discussion? If not, we will proceed with a vote. And the consent agenda carries unanimously. Thank you so much. If I'm correct, that brings us to page three. No, I'm sorry. Page four. And Mr. Martin, I have been informed that we will lose our quorum at about three o'clock. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the item on your agenda is on page four, item C, Major Development Plan 23-58, Kingston Hall, Unit 2. You also have revised conditions that were handed out to you on this pretty yellow paper. on the revised plan that we have received. We are out on Providence Parkway, and as you all know, Providence Park... Look, you can see it behind me, can't you? I remember. So again, we have Newtown Pike, Providence Parkway comes through the property to Russell Cave Road. Here is the site of the proposed hotel, and this, of course, is the insert to give you a close look at this particular site. Now, this is a supportive use in the ED, and supportive uses were added to your zoning ordinance a few years ago to be just that, supportive to the regular ED uses. You can see that this is somewhat of an irregular-shaped lot. The access on your left that runs back and through the property is an access easement to the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County government to get to the pump station. We have a sanitary sewer pump station in the rear, and that would be up in here. That is the pump station. We have a detention basin as well, which is what this property will utilize for their stormwater. The plan for this hotel is 73,338 square feet, 120 rooms, 55 feet in height with 114 parking spaces. You can see the parking spaces are primarily distributed to the rear and to the side. There's a small area in the front as well. There are significant buffers that are required along the edge of the property. because it is adjacent to the urban service boundary and some agricultural uses, particularly to the north. Now, with that, there's also, it will be necessary, I'll point this out, I mentioned that easement, our water quality division, They deal with these frequently. They will have to follow an encroachment process and meet the approval of the Division of Water Quality on how that easement will be maintained and utilized. Because, again, it exists for us to maintain the sewage treatment pump station. But with that, as you all are aware, we also have an EMP compliance statement that is required on a final development plan. it's a little bit different in that again this is a supportive use supportive uses weren't included originally in the expansionary master plan they were added later through a text amendment to your zoning ordinance with that in terms of the future land use element this supportive use hotel does comply with the uses that are in the zoning ordinance for supportive uses relative to the expansion area now are the ed in this expansion area what's important to note is that the allowable square footage in a supportive use is tied to the overall square footage of ed uses on certified final development plans there are several in this area not to complete the complete property has not seen a final development plan per se there's several that have been certified. That would be in this area, certified plans, this certified plan, and then KEMI down in this location are all certified final development plans. There are two in this location that have yet to be certified. They've been approved, but they're not certified. They couldn't count that square footage. Well, when you total the total amount of square footage, they're allowed 18%. That comes to 118,000 plus square feet. The hotel, as I said earlier, is just a little over 73,000 square feet in size. So it meets the requirement of your zoning ordinance for the supportive uses. The community design element, again, the most important item in your expansion area and with your ED uses and these supportive uses is primarily a pedestrian system. They have an internal pedestrian system. They will have sidewalk ends just short of their property. At this time, they will construct a sidewalk across their frontage, and they'll be connected to the overall public pedestrian system in the area. So, again, they're addressing that. They have considerable open space that you can see to the rear of the property, including a dog park. So with that, they are in significant compliance with the community design element. The infrastructure element in the AMP report refers to your major items of exactable infrastructure. In this case, that's Providence Parkway, which has been constructed past this lot and on further to the east. It will eventually be completed, as I said, over to Russell Cave Road. And then the aforementioned sewage pump station, sanitary sewer pump, is also a significant infrastructure item that has been constructed and is in place. So those are the major infrastructure items that are relevant to this particular expansion area. They are either complete or in substantial completion. So with that, in reviewing the report, staff does recommend that you make a finding that they comply with the AEMP. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about the conditions or the EMP report. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions for Mr. Martin? If not? yes and for the record they did file the affidavit that they posted the required sign on the property okay thank you sir mr barrett thank you uh tom summarized uh project well and uh we're in agreement with the uh conditions and just ask for approval. If there's any questions, I'm happy to help. If nobody else has any questions, I have a question. I know somewhere on the property there is a family cemetery. Do you know where that is, Mr. Barrett, and at what point will that be noted on a final development plan for? Looking for Rory. Do you know where it is? I don't know. Okay. What was that question, Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry. Cemetery. The cemetery is at the top button, Tom. Yeah. It's actually located on this lower, I guess it would be southeast corner of the total Kingston Hall property. So it was mentioned and discussed when we reviewed the two plans for the dock, what's it called? Cross dock. Cross dock properties. All right. Okay. Okay. Well, I appreciate it. Are there any other questions for Mr. Barrett? Seeing none, thank you. Okay, thank you. Do we have any members of the public who would like to speak on this particular plan? Seeing none. I will offer this time for any commissioner comment or we will entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2358 Kingston Hall, and it's 16 conditions. Thank you. Second. Second from Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Any discussion? If not, we will take a vote. That carries unanimously. Do we need to address anything with the EAMP compliance report, or does that stand alone? You need to adopt it. We need to adopt that. All right. Do we have a motion to adopt the EAMP compliance report submitted this morning by staff? I move to adopt the EAMP compliance report for PLN-MJDP-2358. Thank you. Mr. Wilson seconds. Any discussion? If not, we will take a vote. And that also carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. So, I think, does that take us all the way to page eight? Well, we haven't done performance bonds and letters of credit. We do that. All right. So, page 8, item C, we just need a motion to accept or approve the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented by staff. Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve the line of credit and the bonds as presented by staff. Thank you. Mrs. Meyer, is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Pol. Any discussion? If not, we will put that to a vote. Thank you. That carries unanimously as well. Now to commission items, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, What you have before you in this particular issue under commission items is a final record play at 23-26, the Wilson subdivision, lots 21, 22, and 23. This was a subdivision that was filed and was reviewed by your technical committee and recommended for approval. And normally it, of course, would stop there. However, staff anticipated there might be a waiver request. And subsequently they did file a waiver request. That needs your all's approval. Now, the Wilson subdivision is located off of Versailles Road. I'm doing it again. Hold on. I'm learning. I can do it here. Versailles Road would be the south here. This is Garrett Avenue, and this is Glover Drive. This drive, Glover Drive, there we go. There's the aerial that will give you a feel for where we are. Again, these are the three lots. Glover is here. It runs over to the elderly facility, the big, tall, multi-story building that's been off for sales road for many, many years. Garrett Avenue continues on up and intersects with some roads and take you over to Cardinal Valley and in that direction. This is a corner subdivision. These three lots on this platter are being proposed to be subdivided. Let me see, I may need to go back into five lots. It is zoned R1C. All these lots meet the R1C requirements. They have the square footage. They have the frontage. The issue that came about for the waiver is the provision of street improvements. And any time you have a subdivision, the subdivision regulations kick in. And they require full improvements, full infrastructure. on a subdivision of property. Again, as I stated, Wilson, this is an older area. This land was created, platted, as it were, in 1914. This is an older part of our community. If you look at the old maps, you can see how the infill and redevelopment area, of which this is a part, extends out kind of along Vercel's Road, and it just reflects a historic character when the area was annexed. So these lots and these neighborhoods could be developed. Again, in 1914, they had different standards. Now, if you were developing in 1914 in downtown, in a neighborhood downtown, odds are you were building curb and gutter along with the street. They did that quite often. And even sidewalks. In this area, and this would have been a rural sort of subdivision at the edge of the city, they built roads with no curb and gutter. And no sidewalks. So, again, that was a requirement of our land subdivision regulations, that they build these items. Now, subsequently, the engineer took a hard look at the property, its topography, and how it functions. And it is important to note, and I've noted this in other presentations, that people tend to forget that our streets are part of our stormwater system. Extremely important part. They gather that runoff from the streets and from lots. They gather it in the gutter, the curb and gutter, and they take it to a facility. They take it to a drain, and then it flows off in pipes and goes wherever it needs to go, which is downstream. In this particular case, there was, I will say, a very good analysis done by the engineer that took a look at the drainage and the stormwater drainage in the area. this is a map a gis map that shows the lots oh i'm doing it again i will break that habit we've got this nice technology so here are the lots here is the existing stormwater system and you can see it's also the nearest inlet to that system is down here away from the properties It does sheet flow. You see that red line? That's the watershed. So the water tends to flow from north to south, and it sheet flows off these properties and off the streets. So in reviewing this, their engineer concluded that there was a possibility that if you concentrated the runoff in a gutter, it could pond in the intersection, which would create safety problems for cars, automobiles, people driving on the street, particularly in cold weather if it was to freeze. And you'd have a big icy patch right there in the intersection. And again, that is a problem. You can concentrate that water, and sometimes you're just dumping it off on somebody else at that time. So the staff in reviewing this, and we talked with our engineers in our new construction, they concurred that under these circumstances, it would be best not to disrupt the current water flow, the system on these properties and in this area. The best way to address that someday will be through a comprehensive project if necessary. They have agreed to build the sidewalk. So we are going to get pedestrian facility along the frontage of both of these streets. The small area plan for that area. The Cardinal Valley does propose several public sidewalk projects, one of which includes Garrett. So it would be anticipated sometime in the future when funds are available, we will see pedestrian enhancements done in this area. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the waiver request to you and be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, or Mr. Pohl. Tom, in your experience, how often does an area like this get street improvements? Or does it ever happen? It does. And the area that comes to mind is an area off of North Limestone to the east. There are neighborhoods that received a comprehensive redevelopment of public facilities through CDBG money primarily in those. And they got sanitary sewers. They got sidewalk improvements and curb improvements and that sort of thing. So it certainly does happen. And does the city have a plan for addressing areas like this? I'm not aware of anything comprehensive in that regard. that they've actually targeted an area and said we need to do something here. And that's usually a good sign, Graham, because that means they haven't identified any large problems in the area. There were problems identified in North Lexington off of Limestone that in fact involved the construction of several detention basins because they identified problems. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Just for the record, since this is called Wilson Subdivision, just for the record, I wanted people to know that there's no connection of kingship between the two. Thank you. And you weren't there in 1914 when it was platted. Nor were any of my relatives. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Greg Smorstad with Banks Engineering, and I'm just here on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Russell Crosswaite. Tom, thank you for the introduction to the project. You pretty much covered most of the things that I had to talk about, so I don't really have a whole lot to add, but I'd just like to ask for your approval of this waiver, and I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. S'morstead. Anybody have any questions? If not, thank you very much. All right. Any commissioner comment before we entertain motions? Seeing none, the floor is open. Mr. Paul. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the findings for petition for waiver of land subdivision regulations for PLNFRP 2326. Thank you. Do we have a second? Commissioner Barksdale, thank you. Any discussion? If not, we are ready to vote. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Good afternoon, this is a public facility review for the University of Kentucky Hospital. They are requesting a public facility review to review a project to construct a new cancer center and ambulatory care center along with an associated parking garage on 56 properties totaling about 15 acres located generally at the corner of Waller Avenue and South Limestone. Let's see. So just to orient you a little bit here, we have, let's see. South Limestone is here. Waller is here. So we're looking at property in the vicinity here. These properties now outlined in blue. Go ahead and move forward to an aerial just to get you continue to orient you a little bit. The Shriners Hospital is located right here. The existing UK hospital parking garage is here. So we're looking at the properties just south of that there. So here we have a site plan showing the proposed construction again with South Limestone running here and Waller down here. So we have the proposed structure contains the cancer center and the ambulatory care center. That is the portion of the building here and then we have the parking garage here. The cancer and ambulatory center will be eight stories tall with a mechanical penthouse on the eighth floor and there will also be a basement level they're looking at about 530,000 square feet of building this will be an outpatient facility providing cancer care and research to treat patients across Kentucky they are planning two phases to allow for future growth of both of those programs the cancer program and the surgery program they will have building entrances for each of those uses with the ambulatory entrance being located here where you see the little drop-off pavilion and then the location for the cancer center being at this drop-off area here the parking garage will have eight levels of parking which will include two basement levels and then six levels of parking above ground and then in association with this project uk plans to widen and realign elizabeth Street. So that is here. Adding in some turn lanes, some bike lanes, and other facilities along there. Here we have a section drawing of the Cancer Center building. And then we have a section of the parking structure. And then the pretty picture, we have a rendering showing the view from Elizabeth Street with the parking garage and the drop-off areas. So staff has reviewed this application under the place builder just to sort of orient us as to some of the criteria that we would be looking for for this type of development. Since the site is located at the intersection of a major arterial and a minor arterial and is near other UK hospital and university uses and other single-family and multifamily residential uses, staff felt that it would be an appropriate place type as either second-tier urban or corridor. And then one of the development types that is recommended in both of those place types that this really fits into is the high-density non-residential mixed-use development type. So site priorities that fit both the second-tier urban and the corridor place types include transit-oriented development, redevelopment of underutilized property, minimizing parking and economic development and job creation. The high density non-residential mixed use is looking for regional serving, commercial uses, services, places of employment, and a mixture of uses with a high floor area ratio. They're generally located along higher intensity roadways. Transit considerations are especially important for this development type and these place types, including accommodations for all modes of transportation, not just cars but also bikes and pedestrians and transit. And generally we're looking for parking that is structured and has an activated ground level. So staff did find that the proposed improvements for the cancer center and ambulatory care center will serve the needs of community and that they are not in opposition to the goals or objectives of the 2018 and the 2045 comprehensive plans. they are in support of those goals and objectives, as well as the policies of the plan and destination 2040, which is referenced and adopted by the comp plan. However, staff does find that there are several placeholder criteria for high-density, non-residential, mixed-use development type that have not been fully addressed in what we received, and it's a little bit unclear as to whether or not some of these things are being included in the design and discussion. So the first of those is the first two criteria that you see here, or no, sorry, the first three, are really dealing with pedestrian experience along the corridors. So the proposed orientation of the building includes its primary entrances towards the interior of the site where those vehicle drop-offs are. So we are a little bit concerned that there is not enough pedestrian focus, especially along South Limestone, because it's a little bit unclear what that activation looks like along South Limestone. and we didn't see a rendering of that facade. Additionally, we expect that a lot of the employees for this will likely park elsewhere on UK's campus and then either walk or ride transit to this location. So there is a bus stop nearby, but there is not a bus shelter nearby at this time. So that is something that's needed in the area. So staff is recommending that the university work with Lex Tran to potentially include a shelter in this location and that they also provide direct pedestrian linkages from the nearest bus stop to the pedestrian entrances along South Limestone. The final criteria that you see on this slide is that parking structures should activate the ground level. Again, we only saw the one rendering, so we don't really know what they're doing to activate the ground level of the parking structure. And we do recommend that they follow the guidance in Article 16-11 of the zoning ordinance, which are some fairly recently adopted measures to ensure that garages are activated. Finally, there are several place builder criteria that deal with multimodal transportation. Traffic engineering and transportation planning have been in conversation with UK about this project for some time, and they do have some concerns. particularly related to the additional conflict points that are being added with the Elizabeth Street improvements. There are a number of turn lanes and widenings and things going on there. So safe pedestrian crossings at all intersections and traffic calming measures are especially important. So staff does recommend that the university continue to work with those divisions. And my understanding is that those conversations are still ongoing even just at the beginning of this meeting today. So it sounds like they are doing that in good faith. And that is all that I have for you. I believe someone from UK is here if you have any questions. If you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you so much. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, thank you. If anyone from the university would like to speak, you're most welcome. If not, we can go ahead and have any internal discussion that we wish to have. Mr. Wilson. One quick question, I guess, for the staff as such. You had several caveats that you wanted the University of Kentucky to fulfill. So how does that work? I mean, if we approve this, is this more of a ministerial activity that we're dealing with here? Yes. Okay, that takes care of it. Public facility reviews are required under the statute, but it is just a review by you all, and it's to, if you all have recommendations that you think could make their project more compliant with the comprehensive plan, you can certainly recommend those, but we can't enforce them. Okay, so the only thing we could do is recommend, and if they choose to do so, they can, if not. Right, and then also make a finding that you believe it does comply with the comprehensive plan. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mrs. Jones. Any other discussion before a motion? If not, the floor is open. I'd just like to go on the record to express concern about the loss of residential opportunities. I think we all know that residential needs around the university are not being met and it puts a lot of pressure on the city and I counted on the aerial photo 33 single-family homes that will be demolished to make this happen. I certainly don't oppose development, but I would like to see the university taking a more serious actions with regard to recognizing those existing residential opportunities around and near the university, particularly for faculty and graduate students. so I just wanted to put that on the record I guess I have one other comment and that is I see that there appears to be a pedestrian overpass connecting to the Chandler facility, is that correct? I personally think that it would be much stronger if the pedestrian connection could be made at the ground level so that pedestrian activity is heightened and automobile activity is slowed and controlled. I think that could really help on South Limestone. It's crowded and fast. I just want to make that comment as well. Thank you. Thank you. If you'd like, please, you can approach the podium and state your name. Good afternoon. My name is Tim Sorensen. I'm with CDM Smith working with the UK and the team to help design this facility. And you have an excellent point on pedestrian safety. When we think about limestone, that's where it starts. starts in an east west movement we want to make sure that those people on limestone have a safe accurate solution to cross the speeds on limestone are such we'd all like them slower but as they are we want to cross them at traffic signals so then we think about a structure from virginia to waller because there's a railroad pass here so no one's going to walk across the railroad so we're feeding it from waller virginia and then what's in that area between there if they want to move east they have four opportunities up at virginia at the hospital clinic con terrace and transcript and alumni so those are the four existing signals so the whole focus of this design from a pedestrian perspective east west is to try to get those people to safely and efficiently get to Waller, to get to those four crossing points so they can get to the signal efficiently and safely and then cross efficiently. Additionally, with the new design of the expansion of PS8, we're trying to get as many cars out the back of the structure of PS8 onto Elizabeth, which will then help those pedestrian movements at Conn, Terrace, and Transcript deal with less traffic. So we have kept that in mind. mind, we were going to do something in between at grade, there would have to be a traffic signal, and we think by removing those intersections, we're actually going to create a safer limestone from both the traffic and the pedestrian perspective. So those are the goals that we're trying to achieve to specifically get to your points. So thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other commissioner comment or questions? Seeing none. Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll try anything. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I note that the fact that the planning commission has done its due diligence in reviewing the regarding the construction of a new hospital and parking garages. And we do so with the conditions and approve the findings as provided by staff. And do we, Ms. Jones, do we need to specifically state that we find it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan? I mean, if you're adopting the staff's report, it says that. Okay. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I know. I should have asked you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. It's all right. I'm just kidding. Is there a second? Thank you. I have a question. Yes, ma'am. do we want in the in the motion do we want to make a recommendation that regarding the summary findings and the recommendations that was made that were made by staff regarding the pedestrian movements and parking structures you know all of the items that are under summary findings recommendation I think if you adopt the staff report, you're going to adopt all of that and recommend it. Okay. So we have a motion from Mr. Wilson, second from Commissioner Barksdale. If there's no further discussion or questions, we will take a vote. And that carries unanimously. Thank you. adoption of 2024 meeting and filing schedule this way yes sir we just presented this a few months ago maybe seems like a long time ago i believe it was in september um the proposed meeting and filing schedule for 2024 the dates are generally this follow the same pattern we've been following for for many years um But I would note that in December this year, so next month, and then also in 2024, we'll be having combined meetings. So we'll just have the one full planning commission meeting in December. Gives you all a little bit of time off. Okay. Does anyone have any questions or comment? All righty. So once this is adopted, we'll send it out to our mailing list and give you all an official copy and then post it to the website. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there a motion? I move that we approve the meeting and filing schedule for 2024. It's presented by staff. Thank you. Second. Thank you, Mr. Polk. Any discussion? If not, we will vote. that also carries unanimously and now we need to discuss is it november 30th yes we had an addendum item and i think mr duncan can address that mr chair uh your current schedule has november 30th scheduled as a planning commission work session however because we have been working with you all throughout the summer and fall on the comprehensive plan and that is now ready to be presented for adoption. We recommend that you change the November 30th meeting from a work session to a public hearing for purposes of presenting the 2023 comprehensive plan update. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. So is there any discussion to that or would anybody happen to have a motion to change our November 30th, 2023 work session to a public hearing for purposes of discussing the comprehensive plan? Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Second. Thank you, Mr. Pohl. Any discussion? If not, we can vote. Mr. Pohl. I'll second. I'm sorry. No, you're, that's fine. You made the motion. B made the motion, yes. Mr. Pohl made the second. That also carries unanimously. Do we have anything else on today's agenda? Mr. Chair, nothing on the agenda, but just a reminder, as has already been noticed in the postponements, that your next meeting is one week from today because of the holiday schedule. So next Thursday, which is the third Thursday, is going to be the zoning hearing for the month of November, and then there will be no meetings the week of Thanksgiving. We get Thanksgiving off. Can you believe it? Bring the turkey off. All righty. Well, if there's nothing else, we are adjourned. Thank you all.