# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - January 11, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 11, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6005 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6005?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-01-11 - **Last revised**: January 11, 2024 - **Length**: 4,261 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 January 11, 2024, 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 seven agenda items during the session, taking a total of eight votes on various planning and development matters throughout the afternoon. The meeting resulted in a mixed set of outcomes, with four items receiving approval and three items being postponed for future consideration. The approved items included the Lail Property, Givens Property Lot 9 (Citation Point), Bluegrass Business Park, and Dixie Bridge Company Property matters. Meanwhile, the commission chose to postpone decisions on three significant items: the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington proposal, Newtown Springs Unit 1 Lot 10, and Wolf Run Industrial Park Block A Lot 1. No public comments were heard during this particular meeting session, indicating that the commission focused primarily on its internal deliberations and decision-making processes for the items on the agenda. The session demonstrated the commission's ongoing work in managing urban development and planning matters for Lexington-Fayette County, with commissioners taking action on over half of the items presented while exercising caution by postponing others that may have required additional review or consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the January 11, 2024 meeting: • Larry Forester • Zach Davis • Judy Worth • Graham Pohl • Ivy Barksdale • William Wilson • Robin Michler • Johnathon Davis (arrived late) • Mike Owens Two members were absent: • Nicol • Meyer Johnathon Davis arrived late to the meeting but was present for the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eight formal votes, all of which passed unanimously with no opposition or abstentions. **Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit** [timestamp: 00:45] Zach Davis motioned to approve performance bonds and letters of credit, seconded by William Wilson. The motion passed unanimously 8-0, with votes from Larry Forester, Zach Davis, Judy Worth, Graham Pohl, Ivy Barksdale, William Wilson, Robin Michler, and Mike Owens. **Case PLN-MJDP-23-00076: Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association** [timestamp: 06:30] Judy Worth motioned to postpone this case, seconded by Graham Pohl. The postponement was approved unanimously 9-0, with all nine members voting in favor. **Case PLN-MJDP-23-00080: Newtown Springs, Unit 1, Lot 10** [timestamp: 10:00] Graham Pohl motioned to postpone, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. The postponement passed unanimously 9-0. **Case PLN-MJDP-23-00050: Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1** [timestamp: 14:00] Graham Pohl again motioned to postpone, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. The postponement was approved unanimously 9-0. **Case PLN-MJDP-23-00079: Lail Property** [timestamp: 18:00] Graham Pohl motioned for approval, seconded by Mike Owens. The case was approved unanimously 9-0. **Case PLN-MJDP-23-00071: Givens Property, Lot 9 (Citation Point)** [timestamp: 25:00] Judy Worth motioned for approval, seconded by Graham Pohl. The case was approved unanimously 9-0 with 16 conditions recommended by staff. **Case PLN-FRP-23-00008: Bluegrass Business Park Waiver** [timestamp: 35:00] Graham Pohl motioned for approval, seconded by William Wilson. The waiver was approved unanimously 9-0. **Case PLN-MNSUB-23-00057: Dixie Bridge Company Property Waiver** [timestamp: 45:00] Graham Pohl motioned for approval, seconded by William Wilson. The waiver was approved unanimously 9-0 with two conditions as recommended by staff. ## Appointments The council took action on one appointment during the meeting. • **Johnathon Davis** was appointed to the Urban County Planning Commission. The appointment was processed as part of the council's regular business for filling positions on various municipal boards and commissions. ## Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington [timestamp: 06:30] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-23-00076 regarding the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington development proposal. Key speakers during the discussion included Fred Eastridge and Judy Worth, who addressed the commission about the project. The applicant requested a one-month postponement of the agenda item to allow additional time to address specific concerns that had been raised regarding the development proposal. The primary issues identified were: • Loss of greenspace associated with the proposed development • Over-parking concerns related to the site plan The commission granted the applicant's request for postponement, allowing the development team additional time to revise their proposal and address the environmental and parking-related issues before returning for further consideration. The item was postponed pending the applicant's efforts to modify the proposal to better address community concerns about preserving green space and appropriately sizing the parking facilities for the intended use. ## Newtown Springs, Unit 1, Lot 10 [timestamp: 10:00] The planning application PLN-MJDP-23-00080 for Newtown Springs, Unit 1, Lot 10 was briefly addressed during the meeting. Branden Gross spoke on behalf of the applicant, requesting a one-month postponement of the agenda item. The postponement request was made to allow additional time for the applicant to address compliance issues related to Article 16 requirements. No detailed discussion of the specific compliance concerns or the nature of the development proposal took place during this meeting. The board granted the requested postponement, and the item will be rescheduled for consideration at a future meeting once the applicant has had time to resolve the Article 16 compliance matters. ## Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1 [timestamp: 14:00] The planning board considered application PLN-MJDP-23-00050 for Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1. Tom Martin, representing the applicant, addressed the board regarding the project status. Martin requested a two-month postponement of the application to allow time to address issues related to significant trees on the property. The applicant needs additional time to evaluate and develop solutions for preserving or properly managing the existing tree coverage as part of the development proposal. No detailed presentation of the industrial park plans was made during this meeting, as the focus was solely on the postponement request. The board did not engage in substantive discussion about the merits of the proposed development or raise specific concerns about the project itself. The board granted the applicant's request for postponement, allowing the two-month extension to resolve the tree-related issues before returning for consideration at a future meeting. ## Lail Property The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-23-00079 regarding the Lail Property amendment [timestamp: 18:00]. Traci Wade served as the key speaker for this item. The discussion centered on an amendment to the Lail Property development to depict the structure and lot layout. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this proposal and recommended approval of the amendment. The Planning Commission approved the Lail Property amendment following the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. The amendment will allow for the updated depiction of structures and lot configuration on the property. *Note: Limited transcript details were available for this agenda item. The summary is based on the available structured data indicating the item's approval and the Subdivision Committee's prior recommendation.* ## Givens Property, Lot 9 (Citation Point) [timestamp: 25:00] The committee reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-23-00071 regarding the Givens Property, Lot 9, also known as Citation Point. The Subdivision Committee had previously recommended postponement of this item due to outstanding questions about compliance with Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Tony, who addressed the compliance concerns that had led to the initial postponement recommendation. The discussion focused on resolving the questions related to Article 20 requirements and ensuring the project met all applicable zoning standards. Despite the Subdivision Committee's earlier recommendation to postpone, the item was ultimately approved during this meeting. The approval suggests that the compliance questions regarding Article 20 of the Zoning Ordinance were satisfactorily addressed during the discussion. The project identifier PLN-MJDP-23-00071 indicates this was a major development plan application that had been under review since 2023. The resolution of the Article 20 compliance issues allowed the committee to move forward with approval rather than continue the postponement. ## Bluegrass Business Park [timestamp: 35:00] The commission discussed agenda item PLN-FRP-23-00008 regarding the Bluegrass Business Park development. The primary issue centered on a waiver request related to the timing of state funding from Kentucky for street construction within the business park. Tom Martin and Rory Kaylee served as the key speakers during this discussion, presenting details about the funding timeline challenges and the need for flexibility in the construction schedule. The waiver was specifically requested to accommodate delays or adjustments in when the state of Kentucky would provide funding for a street section within the development. The discussion focused on how the timing of state funding could impact the overall development timeline of the Bluegrass Business Park and whether granting the waiver would be appropriate given the circumstances. The speakers addressed the practical implications of waiting for state funding versus proceeding with alternative arrangements. After consideration of the presented information and discussion among commission members, the waiver request was approved. This approval allows the Bluegrass Business Park development to proceed with more flexibility regarding the timing of state funding for the street construction component of the project. The approval enables the development to move forward without being strictly bound to the original timeline requirements, providing accommodation for the realities of state funding processes and their potential delays. ## Dixie Bridge Company Property [timestamp: 45:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MNSUB-23-00057 regarding the Dixie Bridge Company Property. Tom Martin presented a waiver request to allow the purchase of an access easement to be held fee simple as part of the rear lot. The discussion centered on the technical aspects of converting an access easement into fee simple ownership, which would incorporate the easement area directly into the property ownership rather than maintaining it as a separate easement right. This type of arrangement typically provides clearer ownership boundaries and can simplify future property transactions. Martin explained the rationale for the waiver request, though specific details of the presentation were not captured in the available materials. The proposal involved modifying standard subdivision requirements to accommodate this particular ownership structure for the rear lot access. The commission considered the request and determined that the waiver was appropriate for this situation. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion, and the technical nature of the request appeared to be straightforward from a planning perspective. The commission approved the waiver request, allowing the Dixie Bridge Company Property to proceed with purchasing the access easement and holding it as fee simple ownership as part of the rear lot. This approval enables the property owner to move forward with their planned ownership structure and eliminates potential complications that could arise from maintaining separate easement rights. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-MJDP-23-00076** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington - **PLN-MJDP-23-00080** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Newtown Springs, Unit 1, Lot 10 - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1 - **PLN-MJDP-23-00079** — approved (9-0): Approval of Lail Property - **PLN-MJDP-23-00071** — approved (9-0): Approval of Givens Property, Lot 9 (Citation Point) - **PLN-FRP-23-00008** — approved (9-0): Approval of waiver for Bluegrass Business Park - **PLN-MNSUB-23-00057** — approved (9-0): Approval of waiver for Dixie Bridge Company Property --- ## Full transcript And happy new year to the individuals that I have not said that to. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's now January 11th, 2024. First on the agenda, let's scratch through the approval of minutes. We do not have any minutes from the 14th. That was an extremely long meeting, and we're still typing those minutes up. But I do like to skip in the agenda a little bit and get an approval for the performance bonds and letters of credit. That's on page 5. And the performance bonds, there's a memorandum for those as well in our packet. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the performance bonds as outlined on the memorandum. Thank you, do we have a second? Second. Okay, thank you Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. All right, and before we get started, I'm going to let my new commissioner walk in with all the legs. So let's welcome Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis, thank you for joining. Glad to have you. I told Mr. Wilson, you knew me when I had hair. I said- You did, I know, that's what I said. Yeah, we do not just stress, that's what it's called. But thanks for definitely joining and assisting with the cities. We look forward to having you and just don't want to put you on the spot. But just thought I'd do that because we kind of go back a little bit. My favorite, I guess, thing about Mr. Davis, he's got a daughter, one daughter, that she won Miss Kentucky and I don't know where she get her looks from. I still don't understand it. Yeah, it got to be his wife. It can't be him. That's what I said, but I always give him a hard time like that. But no, Jonathan, thank you, man. I look forward to having you. So we just got started, as you know. Next on the agenda, agenda item three, any postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, happy new year. I am Fred Eastridge with Vision Engineering on page three of your agenda. Item C, Plan PLNMJDP23-00076, Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple Association of Lexington. I'd like to ask for a one-month postponement on this. Okay, and that's the February 8th meeting? Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to make a motion, but I'd like to make a comment first. In looking back over the plans for this property, it looks like we've lost a lot of green space on the current one, and we're over-parked. So I'd just like to give you a heads-up when this comes back to us. That is why, ma'am, I am asking for a postponement. We like time to work with the staff to kind of... And what I'm saying to you is that we'd like to see that addressed with staff before it comes back. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. I move for a postponement of PLNMJDP 2376 Shriners Hospital as requested by the applicant. One month postponement to February 8th. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Welcome back from your holiday, Brandon Gross. On behalf of the applicant, I am on page four at the very bottom, number E. This is PLNMJDP 2380, 760 Newtown Springs. We would like a one month postponement to the February 8th, 2024. We had a good discussion to the subdivision committee last week, but there's still some things we need to work through with the staff. And we think that extra month will get us there. Okay, thank you Mr. Gross. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to postpone PLNMJDP 2380, Newtown Springs Unit 1, Lot 10 to the February 8th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second. By Ms. Barksdale, please vote via Granicus. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else? Staff? Yes sir, thank you Mr. Chairman. Staff would like to direct your attention to page two of the agenda. Under development plans, item A, major development plan 23-50, Wolf Run Industrial Park, located at 2262 Frankfurt Court. We have received a request from the applicant for a two-month postponement on that plan. There have two significant trees have been identified on that property, They're continuing to investigate their health and whether or not they will fit in with the proposed development. So they've asked for additional time. Okay, do we have a date for that? It looks like it's March 14th. March 14th, yeah. Thank you. It's March 14th meeting. Okay, I'll bring it back to the commission for a motion. Mr. Pohl. Chair, I move to postpone PLN MJDP 2350 Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A Lot 1 till the March 14th meeting. Thank you. Seconded by Ms. Barstow. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, the motion passes unanimously. Okay. Mr. Wade. Yes, sir, Chairman Forster, members of the commission. We do have one item today that's eligible for a consent agenda approval. And that appears on page four of your agenda, item D. And that's PLN MJDP 23-79 for the Layle property. And that property is located at 1551 Greendale Road. Just ask if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have this item removed from the agenda for further discussion. Okay, seeing none, the commission can take this with one motion. Usually I say you can take, you know, four or five with one motion, but it's just the one. That's fine. Thank you. Okay, floor is open for the commission for the approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Poe? Move to approve the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. I don't know who else is there. Okay, raise your hand. Who said it first? All right, Mr. Wilson. Please vote. We got a mic on. Sorry, Mr. Wilson. It's okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So that's it, we'll be back on page two. Agenda item 2B, PLN, MJDP 23-71, Givens Property. And we do have revised staff recommendations for this on the, I'm calling it purple, but maybe lilac. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the item before you on the agenda is on the bottom of page two, continues on to the next page, and we have also handed out to you on this nice little lavender piece of paper some revised conditions on this particular plan. Normally, as you know, they try to match my shirt, and they did not do that. So this is the Givens property, lot 9, also known as Citation Point. And in honor of Mr. Davis, we will say that it's not Goose Givens, which I've thrown into every committee meeting when I've had the opportunity. Because he was golden. So, again, we're out here on Citation and Georgetown and in Remington Way. That's the streets that define this piece of property, as you all are aware. This is the proposed — I'm doing that again. I'm turning my head, and I don't have to anymore. It is Publix in this location. And then here is the proposed out lot for the Fifth Third Bank. As you look at the entire development plan, many of you are aware we're starting to see a lot of out-lot development on this particular piece. It's really taken off. Publics on the other hand, although the earthwork and site work is going on, they've not really started any construction on their facility per se. Again, you may recall that access is off of Georgetown Road in this location. It's a modified access. There's then access off of Remington Way. a light is being proposed at this intersection. We have seen a plan for this site, and we've seen it was a dental office, I believe, and we've seen a car wash, and this out lot is the one that you see before your day for a fifth third bank. The original plan that was submitted needed a few clean up items. They submitted a revised plan for your consideration, which is, of course, why we have your new conditions. We have standard sign-offs on the final development plan, of course. And I'm going to check something here. Ah, there it is. We have a nice close-up of the site. And again, as you come in onto Stockton Way off of Georgetown, this is an access easement. They are proposing access off of that easement and will circulate around the site through the drive-in for drive-through purposes and then parking in this area. You can see the green, the various landscaping requirements on the site. It is a small site. It's tight. That's one of the issues that was facing the developer. They needed to address this area right here. There is a setback, which they have now indicated, as you can see, along with utility easements. And part of that is because that frontage right through there has to accommodate a lot. It's got a setback. It's going to have, it has an easement, so it's got utilities. And then they're going to have to put landscaping in that area as well. So that was one issue. We wanted that information to be clear because of that. They will have to go to the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee. That agenda has been set. They are on it. It meets later on this month. Staff would not anticipate any big concerns for aquifer protection with a bank facility for obvious reasons. It's, you know, there's no chemicals, there's no fuel, that sort of thing that would impact the aquifer. They need to denote and exhibit that they are complying with the open space. We see that more often now, and it appears, you can look at it, that they should be able to meet it, but these tight sites, these small sites, it can be a challenge because they have vehicular use area that they've got to define, they've got to meet, and then they have a usable open space requirement as well. So we would just like to see an exhibit that helps denote compliance with Article 20. We have a condition, 15, resolve timing of Georgetown landscape ordinance requirements. Generally, those larger requirements fall on the developer, and they're going to be connected to the public's, the large anchor of the site. But because we've seen an accelerated development of these outlots, we place that condition on there so that they understand what we want to see there is a discussion of how the developer sees the timing happening. And whether or not at the next step, because you will see an amended plan. We're already talking to people about another outlot being developed in this area. We may need to revisit that issue. and have it accelerated because the outlots are at sort of an accelerated pace. And with that, this is not unusual. The plan scale on the paper that they submitted is off a little bit because they had Lynn Blueprint submitted for them off of what they had submitted electronically to Lynn Blueprint, and that happens occasionally. It's happened on other plans, so the scale's a little off. And that's going to be important when the Mylar comes in for certification. Again, that the scale is correct. You have to scale things correctly. There was one other issue that was talked about, and that was the solid waste, the dumpster. It was angled a little bit differently and would not work. That was identified at technical committee. They've changed that, altered that, and solid waste is a sign-off on this plan. so they will have to get their sign off on that particular placement and on that angle. They require 50 feet of clearance, so they had to be sure they could do that at that location. So with that, staff is recommending approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Mr. Martin, if this user ceased to exist in that location and another user came in, perhaps even in the same zone, would they need to connect with the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee? Or we're waiving it, I guess, in this instance because it's a bank. But what about? If it required a development plan amendment, yes, we would take it back to the committee. If it was just a use that they could get a compliance permit and occupy that building and the use didn't have any impact per the ordinances and requirements? Probably not. But that's rare. I would say they would probably come back. And just so you know, they've reviewed the overall site, and they've reviewed the other outlots that have come in for development. The car wash got a big review. They submitted additional information because of the nature of a car wash and the runoff from a car wash and the technology that addresses that. The other thing that should be placed out there are signs. That's a new requirement that the committee likes to have developers do, and that is place signs up there, and they're working on a standard design. They don't have one. That informs people that they're in a aquifer recharge area. You've seen that when you travel on the interstates and you enter into one. It's a similar concept. We just want people to know, citizens to know that they're in a recharge area so they would report spills. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you, sir. Applicant? Hi, all. I am Tony Ponting with BHDP Architecture, the architect of record for the project. And we have no problem with the items. I've been speaking with Mr. Barton here over the last couple months, certainly more so over the last few weeks. And so we've got no problem with the items he's denoted here. Some of them will happen in the very near future, like the aquifer committee meeting. And so, you know, at this point we're just seeking approval at the meeting here so we can continue the project. Thank you. Does any commission members have any questions or anything for me? No sir, thank you. Great, thank you. All right. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? If not, I'll bring this back to the commission for a motion. Okay, all right, floor is open. Ms. Worth? Mr. Chair, I may for approval of PLNMJDP 2371 Givens Property. with the 16 conditions recommended by staff. Thank you. We have a motion. Second. Second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So now I put us on commission items, page 5 of the agenda. We have PLN FRP 23-8. Bluegrass Business Park? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first waiver that is on your commission items is a waiver for final record plat 23-8 Bluegrass Business Park. If it sounds familiar to you, it's because you have seen this plan before and it was subject to another waiver. My technology is not working. Thank you. So we are out on Georgetown Road at Innovation Drive. Oh, come on, Tom. There you go. So here we have Georgetown. And again, we're kind of catty-cornered from what you just saw on the development plan. in the Bluegrass Business Park with Innovation Drive that runs through the property, curls up, and runs to Spur Road. There's a connection down here as well, Jaggy Fox Way to Citation Boulevard. The previous waiver, well, originally Innovation Drive was intended to cul-de-sac at this location and be terminated. It did not meet the spacing, and this was 20 years ago, as you may recall, along this frontage. subsequently after years of use the applicant and the industries located out there wanted to maintain that connection and it was a just a little access easement that little dark stretch that you see on the plan so they submitted a waiver they did a traffic study to demonstrate that the spacing would actually work and you all approve that waiver however it is necessary now to build that connection and per that approval that connection has to be built to public street standards. And the interesting and wonderful good news about the construction of this little portion of right-of-way is that the state of Kentucky, through District 7, agreed to kick a big chunk of money in to help pay for it. The applicant also is agreeing to pay their portion of constructing that little section to public standards. The glitch is, and this is a good one, is that the state of Kentucky cannot give public taxpayer dollars to a private entity like this, even for this purpose. What they can do is give that money to the Lexington Fed, Irving County government. The Lexington Fed, Irving County government can then disperse those funds to a private entity to build this street section. So it's all a timing of the money. So they have to dedicate the right of way. And that's what a PLAT does, and this PLAT will dedicate that right of way. And once it's dedicated and it's ours, Lexington and Federal Bank of Government, then the state of Kentucky can release the money to us and they can then construct it. So the waiver is for substantial completion. Normally in our construction process, of course, they go out there, they get permits off the the preliminary subdivision plan, the development plan, they build right away. And then they dedicate it on the final record plan because it's finished. And as part of that process, there may be a few items that they bond. And that's standard. And when we have these waivers, and we've had several of them, you all have seen them before, generally it's a timing issue. Sewer tends to be a big one with substantial completion. because they need to, again, they need to build it before they can dedicate it. And sometimes there's issues, again, with construction timing. So this is a timing issue. They are going to post a bond. They're going to comply with all our subdivision regulations. They're going to post a full bond to cover the construction. Shouldn't be necessary to call it because we have state money and we already have their money from a previous bond that was posted on this property. So the purpose of this waiver is just to allow the timing of the funding from the state of Kentucky to this project. And with that, your staff is recommending approval to you. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff? I'm seeing any. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant, Mr. Cayley. Good afternoon, Rory Kale with the partners. We agree with everything Tom said and request approval. Okay, Mr. Kale, you can take a seat and doubt if they want to ask you anything. I don't think there's anyone out there that want to speak on behalf of this, but I always like to say it, and if you would like to, please step up to the podium. If not, we'll bring it back to the commission for a motion. The floor is open. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'll move for approval of this waiver request, plan FRP 23-8 Bluegrass Business Park. Second. For the two reasons provided by the staff. I second. Okay, thank you. We got a second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Martin? You're up. If I might direct your attention to the second waiver under commission items, it is for a minor subdivision plan, 23-57 Dixie Bridge Company property. This is property that's located out on Combs Ferry Road. Here, let me remember that. Combs Ferry. Here's the Combs Ferry Road. And just a short distance to the bottom of this view that you're seeing is the Clark County Line. So this is a part of Combs Ferry that's very close to the Fayette County, Clark County Line. This property was originally platted as four lots in 1991. And when it was platted, the lots, it was a larger piece of property of 60 some acres and it was platted into four parcels. And this is the pattern that you see. It had two front lots, two rear lots. They varied from 11 acres to just over 18 acres in size, the four lots. The access to the rear lots were provided via access easements. And in this particular case, the other two lots are up here. The parcels here, originally this rear parcel was served by an access easement in this location. A couple of years ago, they filed a minor plat and they moved the easement from this location to this location. So now this rear property is served by a 40-foot access easement along the northern portion of the property. The waiver is before you today because the applicant is requesting a to they want to purchase the access easement and hold it fee simple as part of the rear lot. What that does in effect is it provides frontage to that rear lot where it currently has none. It makes it more conforming in terms of our ordinance, although by only 40 feet. Because they have zero, they're going to have 40. Meanwhile, this lot has well over 500 feet of frontage. It's going to be reduced by that 40 feet. So the waiver impacts both lots. It provides a little bit of frontage, more conformity for the rear lot. It slightly reduces the conformity on the front lot. Now in order to maintain the lot size on these, they are consolidating an equal amount of square footage from parcel two to parcel one. And it equals the acreage square footage, it's not acreage, but partial acreage, of the 40-foot access easement. So they have an equal tradeoff there. And that maintains the nonconformity on both lots as an equality, which is required. They have to do that. Even if you weren't seeing this plant and it was a consolidation, in the rural area, we require equal tradeoffs when they're nonconforming. So again, the rear property, there's no dwelling unit. They have farmed it. It's been used for various purposes, livestock, hay, that sort of production. It has been utilized for agricultural purposes. Again, they believe that fee simple ownership of the access easement will reduce the likelihood of future litigation, problems, arguments, disagreements over easements, which can happen, as you all are very aware. It can happen in the urban area, and it certainly can happen in the agricultural area. Mr. Penn, many of you recall, and I know Mr. Owens will recall, was always concerned about agricultural easements and wanted it in the record. Who was going to maintain those easements and who was responsible for them and who they served to make sure that we didn't have these legal disagreements in the future. Apparently farmers can be somewhat argumentative and cantankerous at times. Not like those town people, huh? So, again, what they want to do here in this property is just reconfigure it on paper and acreages and ownership. Physically, nothing changes on the ground. Functionally, nothing changes on the ground. So, with that, staff has reviewed it, and we are recommending approval to you. And we'll be answering questions that you may have for staff. Thank you Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions for staff? No sir. Thank you. The applicant? Afternoon Chairman, Commission members. Scott Schutte on behalf of the applicant. We'll echo everything Tom said. We're fine with the two conditions as well. Just a little bit of history on the property. Like he said easements can become an issue not necessarily next year but But 10 years from now, when that property sells, being lot one, prior to my client purchasing the back lot, lot one and lot two were both owned by family members. So there was never any real concern about a dispute over that access easement. But down the line, we like to eliminate any of those concerns. So we're asking for approval today. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. Does anyone would like to speak on this particular application? Do so by stepping up to the podium. If not, bring it back. And the floor is open. Mr. Mickler. Move to approve the waiver for PLN MN SUB 23-57. Thank you, we have a motion, do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Pohl. Please vote Villagranakis. Okay, motion passes unanimously. All right, thank you. Okay. It's all you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're happy to finish up early today and get you all back out of here. It's good to see everyone again and welcome Mr. Davis to the Planning Commission. Our next meeting is Thursday, January 18th at 1.30. That will be a Planning Commission work session, and that will be on the third floor of the Phoenix Building. We'll see you all then. Thank you, sir. And this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.