# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - February 8, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 8, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6038 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6038?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-02-08 - **Last revised**: February 8, 2024 - **Length**: 15,720 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 February 8, 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. The commission addressed six agenda items during the session, including routine administrative matters and development applications. The meeting resulted in 13 motions and votes, with five items receiving approval and one application being denied. No public comments were heard during this meeting. The commission successfully processed routine business including approval of minutes, performance bonds and letters of credit, postponements and withdrawals, and a consent agenda, while also considering two specific development matters: a development plan for Newtown Springs and a zone map amendment request. ## Attendance The meeting on February 8, 2024 had nine members present and two absent. **Present:** • Larry Forester • Judy Worth • Bill Wilson • Graham Pohl • Ivy Barksdale • Bruce Nicol • Robin Michler • Johnathon Davis • Mike Owens **Absent:** • Meyer • Zach Davis **Late:** • None ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included thirteen formal votes, with most items receiving unanimous approval or postponement. **Administrative Items** The commission unanimously approved meeting minutes from November 16, 2023, January 11, 2024, and January 24, 2024, with Judy Worth making the motion and Graham Pohl seconding (8 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention) [timestamp: 00:30]. Performance bonds and letters of credit were also unanimously approved on a motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Bill Wilson (8 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention) [timestamp: 01:30]. **Postponements** Several development plans were unanimously postponed: - PLN-MJDP-24-00001 (Ramsey Sullivan Property, Unit 3, Lot 1) on motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 02:30] - PLN-MJDP-24-00002 (Jones/Cotrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC) on motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Johnathon Davis [timestamp: 03:30] - PLN-MJDP-23-00064 (Belmont Farm/Citation Centre) on motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 04:30] - PLN-MJDP-24-00004 (Ramsey Sullivan Property, Phase 3, Lot 3) on motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Johnathon Davis [timestamp: 05:30] - PLN-MJSUB-24-00001 (Quintana Estates) on motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Judy Worth [timestamp: 06:30] - PLN-MJDP-23-00076 (Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association) on motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Bill Wilson [timestamp: 08:30] All postponement votes were 9-0. **Approvals** The consent agenda passed unanimously on motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Johnathon Davis [timestamp: 07:30]. PLN-MJDP-23-00080 (Newtown Springs, Unit 1, Lot 10) received three separate unanimous approvals: the development plan subject to staff recommendations [timestamp: 09:30], a waiver with no vehicular access to Newtown Pike [timestamp: 10:30], and findings of compliance with big box design standards [timestamp: 11:30]. All motions were by Bill Wilson with various seconds. **Denial** PLN-MAR-23-00023 (George Birk zone map amendment) was unanimously disapproved on motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Mike Owens [timestamp: 12:30]. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that generated community opposition and resulted in a denial by the board. **Zone Map Amendment for George Birk** The primary contested matter involved a zone map amendment request submitted by George Birk. The proposal sought to modify the existing Chevy Chase ND-1 zoning designation, but faced significant resistance from community members. The opposition centered on concerns about the potential impact such a zoning change would have on the established neighborhood character. Community members and board officials determined that the applicant had not demonstrated the special circumstances typically required to justify a zone map amendment. After consideration of the community input and evaluation of the proposal against zoning criteria, the board denied George Birk's zone map amendment request. The denial was based on two key factors: the absence of special circumstances that would warrant the zoning change, and the potential negative effects the amendment could have on the surrounding Chevy Chase neighborhood's established character and development patterns. This decision reflects the board's commitment to maintaining neighborhood integrity while requiring applicants to meet established standards for zoning modifications. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The commission reviewed minutes from three previous meetings for approval during this agenda item. The meetings under consideration were held on November 16, 2023, January 11, 2024, and January 24, 2024. Larry Forester served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the minutes to the commission for their review and consideration. The commission proceeded to approve the minutes from all three meetings without any recorded discussion or concerns raised about their accuracy or completeness. **Outcome:** The minutes from the November 16, 2023, January 11, 2024, and January 24, 2024 meetings were approved. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 01:30] The commission reviewed and discussed the approval of performance bonds and letters of credit during agenda item 2. Robin Michler served as the key speaker presenting this item to the commission. The discussion centered on performance bonds and letters of credit that were presented for the commission's consideration. These financial instruments typically serve as guarantees for project completion and contractual obligations in municipal projects and developments. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission approved the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the deliberation process. The approval of these financial instruments allows the associated projects or contracts to move forward with the required financial guarantees in place, ensuring protection for the municipality in case of contractor default or non-performance. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 02:30] The commission addressed agenda item 3, which involved reviewing requests for postponements and withdrawals of various development plans and subdivision items currently before the commission. Fred Eastridge served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the requests to the commission for consideration. The discussion focused on evaluating the merits and circumstances surrounding each request for either postponement or withdrawal of pending development matters. The commission reviewed the various development plans and subdivision items that applicants had requested to either postpone to a future meeting date or withdraw entirely from consideration. This procedural item allows developers and applicants to manage their project timelines or make strategic decisions about their proposals based on changing circumstances or the need for additional preparation time. Following the presentation and discussion of the postponement and withdrawal requests, the commission approved the item. This approval granted the requested postponements and withdrawals, effectively removing or rescheduling the affected development plans and subdivision items from the current meeting's active consideration. The approval of these requests helps streamline the commission's agenda by addressing items that are not ready for immediate review or that applicants have chosen to withdraw from the approval process. This procedural step ensures that the commission's time is focused on matters that are prepared for substantive review and decision-making. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 07:30] The commission reviewed the consent agenda, which included several routine items requiring approval. Bill Wilson presented the items for consideration. The consent agenda contained final subdivision plans and development plans that had been previously reviewed by staff and met all applicable requirements. These items were grouped together as they were considered routine matters that typically do not require extensive discussion. The commission approved the consent agenda items without significant debate or concerns raised during the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## Development Plan for NEWTOWN SPRINGS, UNIT 1, LOT 10 [timestamp: 09:30] The commission reviewed and discussed the development plan for Newtown Springs, Unit 1, Lot 10 during agenda item 5. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Darby Turner, who presented details regarding the proposed development. The discussion centered on the project's compliance with big box design standards, which are regulatory requirements that govern the design and appearance of large retail structures. A significant component of the review involved consideration of a waiver request submitted as part of the development proposal. The commission examined whether the requested waiver was appropriate and justified given the specific circumstances of the Newtown Springs development. The commission evaluated the development plan against applicable design standards and zoning requirements. Discussion included review of the project's architectural elements, site layout, and compliance with municipal development regulations specific to big box retail establishments. Following their review and discussion of the development plan, including the associated waiver request and big box design standard compliance issues, the commission voted to approve the development plan for Newtown Springs, Unit 1, Lot 10. The approval allows the project to move forward in the development process in accordance with the terms and conditions established during the review. ## Zone Map Amendment for GEORGE BIRK [timestamp: 12:30] The commission reviewed agenda item 6, a zone map amendment request submitted by George Birk seeking modifications to the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Design Character Overlay (ND-1) zone. Daniel Crum served as the key speaker presenting information on this zoning matter to the commission. The request involved proposed changes to the existing ND-1 overlay zone designation in the Chevy Chase neighborhood area. Following discussion and consideration of the amendment request, the commission voted to deny George Birk's zone map amendment application. The specific details of the concerns raised during deliberation or the rationale behind the denial were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The ND-1 overlay zone designation will remain unchanged as a result of this decision. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of the November 16, 2023, January 11, 2024, and January 24, 2024 minutes - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-MJDP-24-00001** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of RAMSEY SULLIVAN PROPERTY, UNIT 3, LOT 1 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00002** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of JONES/COTRELL PROPERTY & JOYLAND CROSSING, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-23-00064** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of BELMONT FARM (CITATION CENTRE) - **PLN-MJDP-24-00004** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of RAMSEY SULLIVAN PROPERTY, PHASE 3, LOT 3 - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00001** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of QUINTANA ESTATES - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **PLN-MJDP-23-00076** — postponed (9-0): Continuance of SHRINERS HOSPITAL/MASONIC TEMPLE ASSOCIATION OF LEXINGTON - **PLN-MJDP-23-00080** — passed (9-0): Approval of NEWTOWN SPRINGS, UNIT 1, LOT 10 - **PLN-MJDP-23-00080** — passed (9-0): Approval of waiver for NEWTOWN SPRINGS, UNIT 1, LOT 10 - **PLN-MJDP-23-00080** — passed (9-0): Approval of findings that the development plan complies with the big box design standards - **PLN-MAR-23-00023** — failed (9-0): Disapproval of zone map amendment for GEORGE BIRK --- ## Full transcript Welcome, it's February 8th, 2024. Welcome to the subdivision planning zoning meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is now 1.30. And first on the agenda, we'd like to have the approval of minutes. These are the November 16th, 2023 minutes, November 11th, 2024. Excuse me, no, January 11th, 2024, and January 24th, 2024. So the commission, the floor is open for a motion to approval of those minutes as presented. Ms. Worth? I don't see anything working here. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the minutes of November 16th, January 11th, and January 24th. The first one, 23, 20-24, as submitted. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Pohl. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Next, we're going to skip to page eight. I want to take a motion for performance bonds and letters of credit, that's item C. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Michler? Move to approve the performance bonds and letters of credit. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously as well. Agenda item three, postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, Eastridge with Vision Engineering. I have two items I'd like to ask for postponement. The first one's on page 6 plan MJDP 24-0001 Ramsey Sullivan property unit 3 lot 1. I'd like to ask to postpone that to the March 14th hearing. Okay Thank you. And that's for the March you said 14th meeting sir. That is correct. Thank you. Does any commissioners have any questions? If not, the floor is open. Mr. Polk. Move to postpone to March 14th, PLNMJDP 24-1, Ramsey Sullivan Property, Unit 3, Lot 1. Thank you. Seconded by Ms. Boxdale. Please vote via Granicus. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. The second item is on page 7, item G, Plan MJDP-24-00002, Jones Control Property and Joyline Crossing, LLC, Joyline Crossing Apartments. I'd like to ask for a postponement to March 14th. Okay, thank you. Floor is open for a motion if there's not any questions. Mr. Pohl. Move to postpone PLN MJDP 24 to Jones-Cockwick Property and Joyland Crossing to March 14th. Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Davis. Thank you. Please vote via Granicus. And on page three. Hold on, we still got it. We have a vote. I'm sorry. Okay. Our motion passes unanimously. And then I apologize. There's one more apparently on page three. Item A, Plan MJDP 23-00064, Belmont Farm Citation Center, I'd like to ask for one month postponement to the March 14th hearing, please. All right, thank you. The floor is open. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I'll move for postponement of plan MJDP 23-64 Belmont Farm until the March 14th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Seconded by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes unanimously, thank you. Thank you so much. Hello, Chairman and Planning Commission. I'm Michael Barlow with Commonwealth Designs. I would like to request postponement on item H on page 7, PLN MJDP 240004, Ramsey Sullivan property, phase 3, lot 3 for the March 14th meeting. Okay. All right. Okay. Any questions? If there aren't any, the floor is open. It's going to be a busy March. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone PLN MJDP 24-4 Ramsey Sullivan properties until March 14th. Thank you. Second. Seconded by Mr. Davis. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all. Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. On page two, under preliminary subdivision plans, MJSUB 24-1, Quintana Estates, request a one-month postponement to March 14th. Okay, thank you, Mr. Kaley. The floor is open for a postponement to March 14th. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement plan MJ SUB 24-1 Quintana Estates until the March 14th hearing. Thank you Mr. Owens. We got a second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you Mr. Cayley. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Waite. Since that's all of our postponements, we'll move on to the consent agenda. So we do have three items that appear on your consent agenda today, and I will read those out loud. If anyone is in the audience or if the planning commission members would like, we can pull an item from the consent agenda. Otherwise, the commission will take all three of these cases collectively with one motion. So I have a final subdivision plan, and that appears on page two of your agenda, item 1A. And this is PLN FRP 24-1 for the Graves family property. This is for an agricultural tract, a subdivision for property at 5081 Winchester Road. and Mr. Witt has submitted the required affidavit related to a signposting. The next item is a development plan recommended for approval by the subdivision committee that appears on page 5 of your agenda, item D, and that's PLN MJDP 23-83 for Jericho Incorporated Professional Office Project, lot 2. This is an amended final development plan for property at 3475 Blazer Parkway. And then the last item also appears on page 5 of your agenda, item E, PLN MJDP 23-84, Belmont Farm Unit 7, also known as Coventry, an amended final development plan for property located at 2329 Remington Way. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to have any of these items heard today? Okay, seeing none, Chairman Forrester, we can take these in one motion. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilson? We'll make a motion. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the consent agenda as provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Seconded by Mr. Davis. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, so that should put us on my scratch. Page four of the agenda, item B, PLNMJDP 23-76, Shriners Hospital. And we do have revised staff recommendations for us here in that packet. Good afternoon. I'll get this right. This is Harrodsburg Road heading down towards Manowar. We have Palomar neighborhood over in this area wrapping around behind. They're coming in with an amended final development plan for the property on Harrodsburg Road to show we have single family homes in the rear with some town homes and then we have a couple buildings here with some drive-throughs and then some retail uses. With that we have the first 12 conditions for our typical sign offs. We just had a couple clean up conditions labeled the HOA lots because they have several HOA that are around the property. Provide Planning Commission makes a finding for the use on the access easement. You'll see that we have a report for the use on that. Discuss compliance with Article 16, 18, and 20. And discuss changes to the parking and open space from the previous plan. So this is the plan that was submitted. This is the previous plan which shows an open space on the far end of the commercial area because this is the B3 zone showing open space here. And then this is a color up for their plan. And as you can see, the open space has minimized and reduced and they don't show that open space anymore. So we had some questions about how they were meeting the required open space. And the open space there, for the commercial uses you have a minimum of 8,500 square feet and it's supposed to be in one area and we're not sure how they are calculating to meet that. So I will leave that as discussion. And as I said, we have a report here for the appropriateness for an access of findings for the access easement because this property is all served by access easements that come off of, oops, we're coming off of Palomar, off of Syringa, and then this access easement connects over here to Fountain Blue, which is the other corner of Fountain of Palomar. So with that, I will open it to you if you all have any more comments or questions. Any questions for staff? Yes, Ms. Worth? Just clarification on the item number 18, where we have discussed compliance. Are we assured that in that discussion they will have to be able to show they are in compliance with the green space and parking and open space requirements, that they will have to meet those? All right. That's what we're working. That's where we had the discussion question. As you can see, I'm sorry. I should have presented this to you all. this will show you what was approved on the previous final development plan on the left-hand side and then what they're proposing today on the right-hand side. As you can see, it has reduced the open space area and they're showing more parking. On the previous development plan, they had approximately 197 parking spaces for that development. And today with the revised plan, they have 324 parking spaces. And that's where we're questioning whether or not they meet the minimum open space and how they figure they can calculate that open space. Let me restate my question. If I vote for this proposal, am I saying that the planning staff will hold them to the requirements the article yes okay yes i'm sorry yes any other comments questions mr mickler there's also a there's also a change in the building configuration correct yes sir um they had three buildings on the previous development plan and they've reduced them down to two buildings because of what their proposed uses they have a proposed restaurant that they're wanting to put in that's requiring all these parking spaces and that's why you see more parking spaces and so you all had a discussion and that was the the what was driving these changes was the proposed tenant of the right space but it doesn't meet the ordinance thank you Do we have any further questions for staff? Just as a follow up, you mentioned they're reducing the number of buildings by one. But they're adding a restaurant? Well, no, they're reducing the, it's our understanding that this structure here, three buildings and they reduced one so that they could have just the one for the restaurant and increase all the parking so they needed something they reduced the they reduced the building so it gave them more area so that they can put in the parking for the development but they did not bring back the open space that was required. So let me see how to ask this question. I would guess that the original plan was meeting articles 16, 18, and 20? Yes, sir. The amended plans not? How much, you know, I'm just asking, can they come back and say, well, you know, we We can, it looks like they've done away with all of it. So. Yes. Well, they have, they're showing a small, up here in the corner, for their open space. But it doesn't meet the requirements for the open space. Okay. This is Boyd and he works with the green space and open space. Okay. Good deal. Thanks. I'm Boyd Serwe with the long range planning and I do the open space sign-offs. This is a B3 zone that requires at least 8,500 square feet of common space, but the plans don't show any common space. From looking at the plan, I would like to see how they would meet that, both from the location where they'll put it because it has to be visible from the streets. It has to meet certain dimensions, but it doesn't meet it after the changes they made. Okay. Let's see what the applicant's got to say, I guess. Mr. Mickley. This is a clarification because I guess this is still relatively new with the new open space requirements. Part of those had a lot of conditions on the placement of the open space so that it would be used. And if I'm hearing that correctly, what you're saying is by placing it where we can't see it from the street in the back corner that's not meeting those specific requirements? Currently, if we see the whole plan, they show us where the usable space is, where the vegetative space is, but not where the common space is. So the best you can do is guess where it is, but there's no space that they show that actually meets the requirements. So we don't know where, basically we don't know where the common space is going. Okay. Any further questions for staff? Thank you. Thank you both. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Jihad Halani, who is Vision Engineering. On the open space, so the way we are approaching it is that we are having open spaces along the site itself instead of having it one area. And all these open spaces are connected by sidewalks. So we have multiple of lots. So we have lot one all the way to lot seven. So putting it at open space, 8,500 square feet into one area may not be usable for all the remaining seven lots. So we had open spaces spread in every lot and they are all connected through a sidewalk. So based on our calculation, so for example, lot number one is required 3,127 square feet. I'm sorry, it's required almost 6,000 square feet. We are providing almost 10,000 square feet, which is that's the main lot that has changed. On lock number two, which is close to it, it's 10,200 square feet. We are providing almost 16,000 square feet. So according to our calculation, we exceed the usable open space. And as it said, it's usable, so it has to be used for everybody. And the way we made it usable is basically connecting it through a sidewalk to a different area on the site. Like slot one, for example, it has a patio. So we believe this is usable open space. the back the triangular open space they're all connected by sidewalk lot number two has a pad you at the same top it can access that triangular open space through a sidewalk that's the way we were approaching it as it's called usable so it has to be usable for every entity so and the major changes is basically it used to be three buildings and now we are going to two buildings and you know from return as a developer you want to have more square footage because it generates more income. But in our case, we have this restaurant that we have to provide a certain amount of parking spaces so we have to reconfigure the property in order to meet that requirement as well as meeting the usable open space, vegetative open space, and meeting the open space article I believe is article 16 and 18 and 20. And we'd be more than happy to work with the staff to address this article 16, 18, and 20 of open space. Because we really believe that we meet it and we have in excess of 10% of usable open space on the whole site. Okay, any questions we have for the applicant? Mr. Mikula. So by usable open space on that map, is that what you're indicating as hatch marks? Yes, sir. That would be the yellow hatch is usable open space and the green is interior landscaping. So the plain green is interior landscaping and then the, I guess the yellow hatch is the, what you're calling usable open space? Correct. Usable and vegetative open space. So there's a legend. I don't know if we can put that screen, there's a legend. It can identify which one is which. I think there's some confusion. three types of open space and you've only been discussing two so vegetative and usable as Boyd said are depicted but the common open space is is not shown and so that's where we think there's something's amiss okay we work with staff to make sure we meet all the three open spaces don't appreciate the cooperation there but I've got one question I guess for the staff as much as anything we've got two renditions up there I'm seeing a lot of yellow on one side and i'm seeing little yellow dots here and there on the other are is the yellow supposed to be the same thing on both sides you know is that what we're talking about the yellow on the my left side is that what we're talking about as far as the three articles are concerned and now we're down just to the yellow dots on the right side you know is there or was it just not colored it colored up the same yeah i think it was not colored up the same okay during the subdivision committee meeting there were questions and miss worth may be able to speak to this about because part of the presentation to the commission earlier, I believe it was in 2022, was the really selling of how much open space they were being able to provide for both the residential and then connecting it to the commercial. So when the plan on the right came in, there were questions from the subdivision committee about why is there so much less open space and so much more parking. and so to help with that discussion today miss Gault and work to prepare this exhibit so that you could see visually see the difference and we could discuss that change I mean if you look at the first one that in the preliminary development plan was like the triangular area or a little bit more than triangle it shows detention basin so on our amendment all the all the detention basin is going to be in the commercial area is going to be underground. Even though it looks green, but this is mostly detention basin. Basically I don't know how much is going to be usable as usable open space. That detention is becoming underground detention. In return, we have usable open space in that area. So that will address that location. basically the main reduction is going to be along the right side so where it used to be more green space now it's going to be more parking but we still believe we have enough properties that we can meet the usable open space the common open space and the vegetative open space Ms. Burr? No, you're not. I'm looking at those two diagrams and I'm saying if I lived there, it looks like a lot of impermeable space. And the concern on the subdivision committee was we went this direction on green space, we went this direction on parking space. And from what I'm seeing, I would say I don't feel comfortable voting on this plan and I would be more comfortable if we had a postponement and these things got worked out and came back to us rather than voting on it as it is now. Mr. Chair. Ms. Dolenz. If I may, I would agree with what Ms. Worth just said and the fact that I'm looking at it. This thing's been in the works for, been postponed twice. And there's been, I would say, adequate time to resolve this issue without it coming to us today to say, well, we're going to resolve it later. I'm, I would agree with her. I'm not ready to make a decision on this today. I was going to, yeah. Okay, do we have any further questions before we move on to public comment? Mr. Mickler. And maybe this was discussed, but I'm just sort of curious as you sort of, I understand if you've got a different tenant with a slightly different configuration, but in the spirit of sort of that, those connections between the commercial area and the neighborhood, moving that open space to a corner that really isn't a logical place to be walking because there's nothing over there. And it doesn't look like you would be losing that many parking spaces just sort of to the south of that 24 bubble by expanding and emphasizing the open space sort of in that connection between those patios and the neighborhood and sort of keeping in line with that spirit of adding open space and connecting the neighborhood to the commercial area so i'm just curious if you all had looked at that area would you please repeat one more time i was not following you do you mind if you repeat one time please well when we were looking at the open space on the first plan as staff noted there was discussion about the importance of connecting the neighborhood with the open space to the commercial area. And the emphasis now on the open space in the corner isn't a connection to the neighborhood. And I'm just curious because it's not that many parking spaces in light of how many have been added to this those parking spaces directly to the south of that lot 24 there and and that also is closer and more adjacent to that patio area and i'm just curious if you all had discussed that area as a way of expanding to not just meet the open space requirement but meet your all's intent of emphasizing those connections between the neighborhood and the retail area yes sir i like say the residential areas that would be located along the east side there is elevation significant change in elevation so we're planning to put privacy fans along that area with some large trees as a buffer. And then the townhouses lots, there is a connection in between them and the open space area. So in order to connect the resident, existing resident, the east side, it has to be multiple of steps, I mean stairs, in order to make it there's a significant drop in elevation between that side and the lower side. I'm not sure if I'm following i'm sure i'm not sure if i'm following your question well i don't think you are but i guess the answer is probably that that wasn't something you all looked at or or considered and and so i would also just sort of say that it seems like more discussion is needed before i would vote to approve this okay all right Okay, without any other questions, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? You can do so by stepping up to the podium. Okay, seeing none, bringing back to the commission, there was a lot of questions and concerns on this one. Ms. Worth. If there's no questions or concerns, the floor is open for the motion. I've got one thing, looking at the revised conditions and the wonderful date up in the heading, it says 2824. There was some discussion at postponing or continuing this without the applicant's willingness. That's not on the table. So, yeah. Can I interfere? Yes. Yes, sir. We would like to ask for two weeks postponement, please. He asked me for two weeks. Yes, sir, two weeks. Yeah, do you want to continue with discussion? Yeah, that's fine. We got it. Yeah, he said. Mr. Chair, I move for a two week postponement as requested by the applicant for PLNMJDP 2376 Shriners Hospital. Continuance? Continuance? A continuance, so we don't have to, yes, a continuance, so we don't have to redo this over again. Okay, I'm going to restate my motion. I ask for a continuance of PLN MJDP 2376. Thank you. We have a motion for the continuance and a second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Let me get out of this one here. Waiting on you, Graham. Can't find it? It's not signed out. Yes or no? And then again? Are you a yes, Graham? Yes. Okay, so that motion passes unanimously. He's trying to re-sign in. That's fine, thank you. Still keep us on page four, PLNMJDP 23-80, Newtown Springs. We have revised staff recommendations and a waiver request as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, the next plan on your agenda is, in fact, Major Development Plan 23-80, Newtown Springs Unit 1, Lot 10. And we have passed out to you on this blue sheet some revised conditions, as well as a staff report on the big box design guidelines and on a waiver request as well on this property. So here we are out on Newtown Pike. In this direction, this frontage. This is Citation. To help orient you, this is Citation. Here is, again, Newtown. This is Newtown Springs and this is Silver Springs in this location. Amazon facility is down here. So what you see before you in this area is a proposal to develop this part of the property. It is zoned primarily B6P. There's a little bit of AU land that is along the front of the Newtown. That's residual from when this was originally zoned. And it's just a little strip of AU that runs down through there. There are easements and landscaping and that sort of thing in that area. Now let's see. There we go. This color up will help you see it in much better detail. As you all are very much aware, this is a proposal to build a Kroger's in this location. They are proposing, of course, the Kroger's. You can see it here. They're proposing out-lot development in this area on lot 11. So this is lot 10. It will eventually be subdivided into lot 11, and then the AU portion I mentioned will be lot 12 in this location. They're proposing two access points, full access points here and here along Newtown Springs Drive. Again, the large rectangle that you see modified, that is the Kroger's facility. This is their gas station, their gas facility with a small kiosk, about 300 square feet, and then you can see the canopy with the gas pumps at that location. Here at the bottom, due to state law, as you're all aware, that's the wine and spirit shop. They have to be physically separate from the rest of the grocery store. Now, they are proposing a 127,300 square feet. That's the Kroger's, that's the Spirit Shop, and that's the little kiosk for their gas facility. The outlots on 11, you can see this is a restaurant proposal at 6,500 square feet. and then these other two buildings on the south end of that proposed lot, they are four-story buildings and when you total them all up, there's 122,000 square feet in those structures on lot 11. The Kroger's is proposing 426 parking spaces to serve the grocery store and you can see all out here in the parking lot, out in front of the building, and then an additional 224 spaces to serve Lot 11 and that future development on Lot 11. You can see again, there's access between the two proposed lots and Lot 10 in this location. They're showing access, as I mentioned, into the Kroger's at this location. They're also proposing a write-in only off of Newtown Springs at this location as well. The Kroger's itself has several issues with it that will have to be resolved. One we're going to go over, we're going to talk about the big box requirements. It's 127,000 square feet. They have to meet our big box guidelines. In addition to that, finding that you're going to have to make, there was one little clean up item we talked about on their site statistics and we finally discovered the issue there is that we actually agreed on the square footage but they had typed in the wrong number on their plan and staff kept saying, wait a minute, we can't seem to work this out. It was 720 square feet. So we now understand the issue is we agree on the square footage. It just needs to be clearly denoted in the site statistics. Now, this area up here, as you come in to this access point, this is their pharmacy pickup, and this is where you pick up your groceries. Click what, I don't know what it's called. It always throws me. I've never done it. But it's where you order ahead and they bring your groceries out to you. Oops, I didn't mean to go there yet. So again, what they're proposing there is to combine those two auto-centric very uses on that northern end of the building. As they come in, you can see the circulation pattern that they are proposing for this area. You come in, you can circle here, and you can circle here and serve those. The Wine and Spirits down here, you can see it also has a drive-through. The rear of the building, they will have their trucks and their deliveries come through, come into the rear. You can see the dock in this location. And they've actually designed enough room to turn around. And these tractor trailers will then go back out and through this area and back out to Newtown Springs Drive. But they won't have to circulate through the property, that sort of thing. And the big box touches on this, and I'll return to this. They have all their compacting garbage services inside the building there at the rear. They have a very advanced system to deal with, as you can imagine, a tremendous amount of cardboard particularly that they use. And interestingly enough, we found out that even with their perishables, they compact those and throw them away. So with that, point out two, there'll be buffering along this rear property line. This area here, and you can see it on the overall plan better, is a very large detention basin. Serves primarily the residential properties here to the rear. Here's that. This is the detention basin. It's a large detention basin. This is the residential property to the rear. So, again, in addition to the big box, this area that I pointed out to you already right up in here does not currently meet the VUA requirements and the setback requirements in Article 16. They are going to have to go to the Board of Adjustment to seek a variance on that setback for this area to function as you see on this development plan. They have filed that with the Board of Adjustment, and they will be proceeding next month to that hearing. Well, that is one thing that this plan is contingent upon. There is a waiver request. It's a two-part waiver request. I mentioned this little spot right here. Well, they need a waiver on the distance from Newtown, an arterial to that spot. And again, my heavy thumbs. It's a waiver in a distance requirement for that write-in only. And then, because this is a proposed subdivision plan, Again, the situation concerning a service road was raised, and there's a service road system north of them that serves those commercial properties, and I'm going to get into that with the waiver, but the waiver request does specifically address extending this service road through this area and hooking up to Silver Springs Drive. So again, that is an issue that was affecting this particular development. Now, in terms of the big box standards, these guidelines were developed some years ago when Lowe's and Walmart developed on the UK property out on Nicholasville Road and Manowar. and they threw those boxes out there and all that parking. Everybody went, oops, wow. And so we came up with these big box guidelines. They've been around for a while now, as you can imagine. We don't see many projects that meet the requirement. They've got to be over 80,000 square feet, I believe. We've had people deliberately scale down their square footage over these guidelines. Kroger's, on the other hand, has met these before. They most recently, and it's been a while, was the Kroger's on Euclid. They had to meet the big box standards when they rebuilt that Kroger's and did that work. So again, you have a report, and one of the first aspects is the uninterrupted facades. That's one thing the big box addresses. The guidelines are required to break it up. You've got to break it up. You've got to break it up with changes in the wall, with offsets, with architectural materials, just different aspects, articulations, windows. These things are all required to break up the facades. And you can see from there they're proposing that on the front where they are proposing the – in fact, it says for every 100 linear feet, there should be a corresponding inset, offset, or projection. They'll break that up. The guideline number two addresses building heights. They have to be varied, or they have to utilize mansard roofs, gable roofs, hip roofs, dormers, or parapets. Kroger's in the past, and here you can see variations from this in the heights. And they're using parapets and variations in the heights in their building. That's not well shown on the development plan, and that's one of the recommendations staff's making at the end of the report, is that they need to clearly distinguish that on the final development plan. In addition, one of the guidelines, number three, smaller stores must be provided, are different departments in the big box, should have exterior display windows, separate outside entrances. This is all going to the idea of a big box that has multiple, primarily multiple tenants. The Myers building was a big box building. You've seen that. We've heard different opinions of that because it has kind of an artificial look to it where they broke that up with trying to show different storefronts. In reality, that's basically Myers. But that's how they approached the big box in that particular instance. So again, the idea is to break it all up. We don't want these big blank walls. Another one, the guideline number four is they have clearly delineated customer entrances. They've done that right through here. You enter here, enter here. They've delineated these entrances. And you can also see that, let me go back, on the development plan, and they have walkways to them as well, which is another aspect of the guidelines. Again, you can see through here, and this is the entrance. These are walkways that they've shown into the entrance. And again, with heights and the offsets and that sort of thing, they need to be clearly shown on the development plan as well, not just on the corresponding exhibits. Also as a requirement, the customer answers are required along all exterior walls facing the public street. So in this case, they have public street here, here, and here. The layout of the store is not conducive, obviously, to customer entrances. They have one major customer entrance right here. Then they have a customer entrance here into the wine and spirits. There's no customer entrances in this area into this part of the building or on the sides of either one of those buildings. And really the layout of the store, the proposed uses, you know, you have drive-throughs right through here, automobile traffic, et cetera. The same would be true here. The layout and the way their store functions is not conducive to that fulfilling every aspect of that particular guideline. Otherwise, the Euclid store is another good example. They actually put an entrance in on one side of that store facing Marquis, I believe, the side street. and then they actually were able to meet it in that location. Somewhat of a different set of circumstances there. But they also talk about the guidelines, residential buffers, or buffers to the residential side. I mentioned that before in this area. What they're choosing to do is kind of a combination of the big box requirements and Article 18 as well. The big box is a little bit more stringent in requiring a berm. They're not proposing a berm in this case. There's some concerns with the detention basin, the berm, and the width they have there. They are proposing a fence, shrubs, a hedge, and then they're going to add trees. And Article 18 requires them every 40 feet. Big box says 20. They're meeting the article, they're meeting the guidelines where they're going to put a tree in every 20 feet. So staff believes that that is adequate landscaping. And then when you add in that large basin that I showed you, that's a nice separation from the residential use to the east. Loading docks, trash collection, outdoor storage areas, those are behind the building. They're going to be well screened. We believe that they've done a good job with that and with their layout of their big box. flows, sidewalks. They show sidewalks along the exterior of their wall, which is a requirement. And again, they're off-street parking. They're coming in to meet this. They have an interior sidewalk system as well. Now, I will point out, let's take a quick look here. There's a lot to go over on this particular plan. If you look, again, it's a little bit difficult. They actually saw a walkway into the center of the building on the development plan as they should. The color up actually does not show that. That's a previous version of the plan in that this walkway has been moved into the center of the parking lot. But sidewalks are required along all the sides at front of public street. Newtown Springs has public sidewalks. There is Silver Springs has a sidewalk. And they are proposing as well a protected pedestrian and bike facility. In this location, you can see they tie in here and here. And again, there's internal sidewalk systems that go to the public sidewalks along the frontage. There are, item 10 is to provide pedestrian amenities. That was a big emphasis in the big box when they were originally brought out and developed. They are showing a transit, a future transit facility in this area, and they're showing benches and a bicycle repair in that area. Now, it's up in there in the green area. There's a lot of green space in that area. In order to fully meet this guideline, those benches need to be, there's a recommendation of a patio, for instance, patio, a plaza area for pedestrians. Now we're anticipating that that transit stop that we're proposing is in the future. At this time, there's no transit service down to town springs, nor is it anticipated in the future, the near future. There is a bus stop out on Newtown Pike and under the multi-modal requirements of B6P, which addresses bike racks, which they have, addresses pedestrian systems, which they have, they're gonna have to work with Lex Tran on that offsite bus stop. And that comes down to what Lex Tran envisions they may need in that location. They may just need a shelter, for instance. That's been a common development to assist so people are out of the weather. So again, they need to improve that area to come into full compliance with showing some additional amenities, a plaza, something, and it's going to have to be dimensioned and shown on the plan. They need to show pedestrian walkways that are most visually attractive near customer entrances and they need to be distinguished. back to these areas where people can walk in, walk in here, walk in here. They're proposing paint. That meets the guidelines. It's not encouraged. They encourage a change in texture to offset those like with pavers, concrete, stamped concrete, something to make that a stronger distinction for pedestrian safety. and sidewalks should be covered with awnings. They show that. It's not obvious and that's something else we like to see clearly denoted on the plan. These areas are covered with an awning, a porch roof type construction to keep people out of the weather and it's required to be along 20% of the wall space. It does appear they certainly meet that. Now Now there's some concern that they could do a little bit better job at the wine and spirit shop in meeting that particular requirement. They do have an awning, it is covered. You can see there's windows as well, they're breaking that area up, but there's some concern that they could strengthen their compliance there by a little bit more coverage for customers in that area and utilizing that entrance. lots, they are required to have no more than 60% between the front of their building and public streets. There isn't any to speak of in the sides. You can see here, it is all here. They are, according to the guidelines, they're buffered by these uses. In addition, We have our newer standards on VUA and VUA screening and vegetation will help complement screening that parking lot from the Newtown Pike right of way. So we feel like that they are complying with that particular guideline. And last and not least, they need to have secure facilities or racks for bicycles. They've done that at this scale. It's sometimes hard to see, but they're showing bicycle racks in this area and this area as well. And I mentioned they have a bicycle repair station up there. I don't know what that's comprised of personally, but they're proposing one in that location. With that, the staff is recommending approval. We believe that they are in considerable, if not substantial, compliance with the adopted big box guidelines. Again we're recommending in your report that they add some of these details to the plan itself. And then we've recommended that they further develop and add to the pedestrian amenities that they've shown on this plan. And then I mentioned the crosswalks could be better. They could do more than just paint, which is a minimal compliance with the guidelines. And then the extension of the canopy I mentioned. That's the big box report. Let's jump into the waiver. So there was a lot of discussion. And on the previous plan when Amazon came through, there was a note that left a discussion item on a potential connection between these properties. At the time it was unknown what was going to be developed there. Consequently, Amazon got developed, they built Silver Springs Drive, and if you've been out there you've seen there's a significant grade change and there's a retaining wall along that frontage all through here with a significant grade change, hence the retaining wall. also utilities now in that area. As I mentioned before, there is a service road network in the area and that's this right here. Now here's a public street, public streets and they provide the connectivity in the area and they serve all these public streets and they're connected. This is a service road, it happens to be an access easement. It was required because when they subdivided all this commercial property, these properties needed access, but they were not allowed and are not allowed access to Newtown Pike. That's the important thing to remember about service roads is their role. Their service, what are they intended to do? They're intended to protect access to that arterial or collector, depending on the situation, in order to minimize access points. In fact, in 1965 and in 1983 as well, oops, it would help if I look at the right, I've got too much paper. I noticed that service roads were originally called marginal access streets. Marginal access streets, service roads. They're intended to serve those properties, to allow them access, which will then take them out to a public street and they're generally anchored in a public street along then to protect that artillery. In this case to protect Newtown Pike. Newtown Pike is our federally designated freight route. It's one reason you see all the trucks out there along with the traffic. Now there's a lot going on out there. Newtown Pike is going to be expanded. More lanes are going in. That's underway. Citation is going to go through. We're negotiating right away, right now, Citation's gonna hook up to Russell Cave Road and Hollow Creek is gonna be connected. So there's a lot happening. Hollow Creek's gonna come through here and allow people to utilize the street system here. So in evaluating the need for a service road in this location, which would really be intended just to serve these outlots, like these up here are served by this access, by this service Road and we evaluated that and it was determined that it's difficult to gauge the usefulness there and it would really impact safety levels in any way. And again, Newtown Pike is going to be expanded. That should improve the safety standards out there. It's important to note that that's a right in right out. So again, we have and this down here, Silver Sprint, right in right out. So they have modified access points now that address the concerns that when these developments came through with Newtown Pike and with traffic movement and public safety. So in evaluating the waiver on the service road, staff agrees with the applicant that that large grade change and that wall that's been built there is a significant hardship for them to overcome. It's gonna require a lot of engineering, a lot of design. It's gonna cut into this lot and create an issue for pedestrian and bike facilities, et cetera. So we agreed with their concern about how to overcome those physical barriers in this particular instance. The other small aspect of the waiver is this little write-in, and it's a write-in only. The distance here doesn't quite meet. It's about 250 feet short of meeting subdivision regulations and again in evaluating that it's a write-in only and it's coming from a modified write-in write-out intersection on newtown so again we felt like that there was no impact negative impact on public safety relative to traffic movement in regards to this particular waiver as well so staff has recommended approval of the waivers on this particular property and we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you Mr. Martin. Mr. Wilson. Let me get my can't yeah just a couple of questions for clarification. First of all how many parking spaces in that Kroger lot? 420 oh 476. 476. When you're talking to the developers about that number of parking spaces, was any consideration given to charging stations? That's an excellent question they'll have to answer. I'm not sure if they're at that in their business model as yet. It would probably be associated with the gas facility, I would think. That's an excellent question. Okay. One more, if I could. You said that Newtown Pike, there's an expansion plan. Do you have any idea when that might go through? It's underway. Right now. The design has been done. They're going to get started any time. I'll have to go out and visit. Thank you. You'll want to take another route once they start working. Depends on what time you go visit. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, service road. I'm curious. The service road you're talking about is currently Newtown Pass. pass, is that correct? The existing service road is this access easement that runs between these properties. This is a public street right here. This is a service road. Service roads as you know, Mr. Owens, were initially envisioned as running parallel to the main arterials. Those intersections didn't work well, so we encourage them to be offset. Where was that ultimately supposed to go wasn't that supposed to go down to like nandino boulevard well there there was a plan that showed a connection that that could get people through that property beyond amazon yes so what what that would be it didn't clearly state it could have been a local street it could have been a service road but sure um silver springs uh being on it today um i didn't know I didn't know that Silver Springs was on, looks like it's on Amazon's property. It's public right away. It's public right away. Yes, it's public right away. Okay. All right. Was it always routed that way? Pretty much, yes, sir. It was supposed to come out that way. Okay. All right, then. Okay. I'm just curious. been you know i'm curious about did did amazon before my time well i was on a hiatus at that time uh amazon came through did they have to have a waiver for that service road i don't recall that they did no uh because it was just one unit one piece of property it's no subdivision there's no out lot development they they were allowed right in only off newtown pike and then they had to access this public street i'm just curious because you know right you know what you're saying is a service road here runs through this lot and would have ran through amazon as well well and again with the intent to serve out lot development to give them interior access and control access on new town pike okay um do you know anything mr turner may uh as far as legacy trail you're saying newtown pike is going to be widened which everybody knows it is i've heard rumors that the legacy trail is going to go underneath newtown pike i have heard the same thing i'm don't i've not seen the plans so i can't speak to that perhaps mr chair mr owens uh that that is the plan for at citation boulevard or near citation boulevard for uh the legacy trail to go under newtown pike so that there's not a conflict at the intersection anymore would it would it be up there near the citation i'd heard is going to be down in the low area of a newtown pike Okay. It's going to be closer to citation. Okay, very good, thank you. Yes, Mr. Nichol. I've got a question about the hardship request to remove the access road. Was it, was that, were Amazon traffic considered as part of the hardship? Because I know that the neighbors are concerned about Amazon having another route to send their trucks through this proposed, or what was required as an access road, which could lead to additional traffic of the Amazon trucks in the additional neighborhood. Yes, sir. And Mr. Nichols, I didn't say this before, but I will add staff has had a lot of meetings and a lot of conversations with Kroger and their representatives. And they did express concern about that traffic. That comes back to one of those that's hard to measure until it happens, until you set the situation up. But they were very much concerned about that traffic moving through their property. Yes. I can understand that. I love Amazon, but it seems like that would be a hardship or a burden imposed on the property by the Amazon. Thank you. Ms. Wirth. This is just to get this on the record based on what we heard in subdivision committee. The Royal Springs Aquifer Committee, am I on? Recommended against this, but staff had determined that Kroger has a really good track record in terms of their underground storage and no leakage. Is that correct? Thank you, Ms. Worth. I should have elaborated on that. I am a member of that committee and I can tell you that they have strong concerns to protect their water and we share those concerns. And we've cooperated and worked with them to protect that aquifer. They have a blanket prohibition in Scott County on any kind of gas station in the aquifer. As you know, there are already gas stations in this area and there are gas stations in the aquifer in Fayette County. To my knowledge, there's never been any issues. They made an excellent presentation to the aquifer committee and presented their technology and they have state-of-the-art technology. They have an alarm system that is monitored 24-7 for those sorts of issues. But the committee did in fact recommend against the gas station on this location. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Mickler. I have a couple questions. I do have one comment. I live four doors up from Kroger on Euclid, and it is really nice to be so close to a grocery store. They have an alarm system there for their power generator. They sometimes let that go off for 24 hours at a time, so I'm not sure how quick they always respond to their alarm systems. I've had to call the management, go down to the store. Everybody complains whenever their generator doesn't kick on in the trials. those alarms will just go off for a day. That's not a critique on Kroger's really intentionally, it's just that there are limits to alarms. A couple of questions. In looking at this, it really seems like Kroger's bringing a need to an area and a grocery store is certainly an amenity. There's a lot of parking between the Kroger proposal and the front lot parking proposals. And I have a couple of questions related to how much parking is being proposed on the lot. The first one is that when I see Kroger's, by me the busiest peak times are typically the weekend, especially Sunday. That's when the lot is really hopping. It seems like these are close enough in proximity. Was there discussion on these sort of parking spaces seem to be allocated per building, not necessarily as a development on a whole, and I wonder if there was a discussion on that. Because in total, we're looking at in excess of 700 parking spaces, it looks like. Staff, as a matter of routine review, will always ask, now, do you need that much parking? Why do you need that much parking? That is Kroger's decision, that they need this parking for their facility. The 400 number is 476 specifically for them. The other, frankly, the other numbers associated with lot 11, may be some conjecture there, but that's on those. But this is Kroger's parking lot is what they say they believe they need for a store of this size. and um in our um um in our guidance we've sort of made an effort to you know when we look at diagrams we're sort of making an effort to try to put parking behind and to the side of buildings. In your presentation you talked about the parking being buffered by the other buildings and uses. Are we saying that the gas station is a buffer to parking? Well, the big box guidelines refers to the front of the building facing the public right-of-way of Newtown Pike, that front. So the outlot development is screening them along with there's a Newtown Pike ordinance, as well as increased VUA screening that we believe will accomplish that particular goal. So we're just, the gas station is more at an angle away from the front. So is it screening? Probably not. And I guess just for my sort of deeper understanding here, because this seems like the kind of building configuration that we're trying to move away from, where you have the large 120-square-foot building at the back of a lot with 500 parking spaces in front of it. And so since we've talked about writing guidelines to avoid that, I'm sort of curious why our guidelines are allowing it. It's in the B6P development. It's allowed. And again, just with the big box guidelines does help try to mitigate that with architectural renderings, offsets, that sort of thing, and screening. So we're trying to mitigate that. Yes, but you are correct. We're trying to get away from that if we can. And this is a smaller note in the scale, obviously, compared to 500 parking spaces in front of Kroger's and 700 overall. But we have the Newtown Pike. I mean, we have the Legacy Trail coming through here. And I just can't help but comment that the bicycle repair station seems almost as far from the legacy trail as possible. And that just stood out as an oddity there. Well, staff would not disagree. That showed up on the most current version of the plan. So they perhaps could address their rationale for that particular location. Okay, thank you. Okay, any further questions for staff? Mr. Polar. What was the rationale for that location? I believe that the Kroger representatives could probably address their rationale. Yes. Can you discuss the protected bicycle and pedestrian access that is on the, it looks like the south of the property? It looks like that's an amenity that is pretty significant considering it's ten foot wide. Is that something that we normally require, or they've gone above and beyond to provide ample bicycle and pedestrian access? Big box. Big box. Well, that's a great suggestion. When you have this scale of development, these guidelines address some of those items. Fantastic. Specifically. That's good. One last question. There's a note about a solid fence, six-foot-high solid fence. Does that wrap the side adjacent to where the trucks are parked at the back? It should go all the way along the rear property line and even down along some of the border on the south as well. And is that a concrete fence? Do you know what the – they haven't specified a material just a fence at this point the reason i ask is that those trucks are going to be sitting there idling and um i remember with the kroger on euclid that that was a big issue because of the adjacent residential properties i realize the residential properties are nowhere near as close here but um that's a fair amount of noise if there are Or several semis idling for eight or ten hours. Right, and hopefully that large, that distance with that large attention base will help mitigate that to a certain extent. Thank you. Okay, I think we're wrapped up for the questions for now. Thank you. Mr. Turner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Darby Turner, representing the applicant in this case. And I'll try to answer some of the questions, but I'm going to be very brief because as Tom indicated, we've had several very large meetings with staff and a number of smaller meetings working through this plan over the last couple of months. And we're very appreciative of staff and the help and the attention that they've paid. And I really think as a result of all that, we've come up with a better plan than original. You know, this is, we've talked about this as a grocery store. Well, it's really more. It's the Kroger Marketplace, which is the big version, with a lot more opportunities for not just groceries, but other things in the store. If you've been around town, you've seen some of the versions of that cookware, extensive cookware, so forth and so on. But this is a major investment from this company and for this community, particularly in this spot. This was identified in the Woodburn small area plan as a food desert. It didn't say it in those terms, but that's what, that there was insufficient supply of proper access to food and grocery, pharmaceutical, so forth items. and so this is a huge step forward I think for the community in in putting those uses here and making a significant investment in the community in in this area it's a 30 million dollar plus investment and you know of course in Kroger's first marketplace grocery store they pretty well know the formula on what it takes to make it reasonably successful for its customers. And keep in mind, as customers are out in that parking lot too, with not only just park the cars and walk in, they're coming back out with carts of groceries and kids and everything else. So you you need some space. With regard to the bicycle repair station, actually, let me see if I can flip back there a little bit. This area up here, I don't like that. What is it? How you do the uh... just want to read that there uh... right up here is the spurs spring area and this has been deemed uh... back rubber and uh... staff to is an area of opportunity to provide some outside outdoor amenities benches tables and that sort of thing. It hadn't really been worked through quite as much as it will be, but that's where the bicycle repair station was proposed to be up in this area where you would have basically a communal outdoor area. And so whether there's one that can be put closer to the trail, that's a possibility. I don't rule it out, I don't rule it in, but that's a good point. That's a good point that that may be closer. Here we go. Here's the trail right here. And the area, I can't see it on this, let me see. I'm getting there. It goes all the way along here, and as you know, back here under Amazon, Amazon built to put it underneath their drive-through to reduce that conflict. And Mr. Owens, there is a proposal, I think it's been worked through right now, to take it underneath New Circle Road, I mean, Newtown Pike, right in this area. And that's actually in the plans. There's some conflicts that have got to be resolved in terms of easements and land control that weren't really worked out to the state before they got there, but I think it's going forward. But having said all that, one thing I just wanted to say, we're in complete agreement with the staff's recommendation. I did have one suggestion on the waiver request with the condition where it says no access directly to Newtown Pike that you add no vehicular access. to Newtown Pike. I think that's what you mean. But with the trail and the multimodal things, you're gonna have a lot of access basically to Newtown Pike by folks on foot, bicycles and so forth. That is the intent. Right. Okay. And we will, on the big box, I won't say conditions, but the notes on the big box condition, we certainly will be working with staff to get everything that needs to be on the plan, on the plan, and get that work through during the certification process. But we basically are very, very happy to be in this spot and hope that you all will agree. And we're in agreement, and we appreciate all the hard work that's gone into this from the staff level. And, yeah, I can answer any questions. I'll be glad to. Thank you Mr. Turner. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Owens? Yes sir, thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Mr. Turner. Obviously something this size there's a lot of work that does go into and I'm sure meeting-wise there's a lot of meetings which has been expressed on both sides which I can appreciate and realize it must happen uh i'm just curious since we only got the waiver request yesterday when did you get notice or of their recommendation for the waiver request you mean recommendation on the service road yeah waiver um in the last couple of days of their of their of their position yes and it and frankly it was a huge issue because it probably would have destroyed he would have made this project not feasible for Kroger. Okay. Because it would have created a V right. Yeah, driving it today and going up and down Newtown Pike daily, you know, Amazon did a wonderful job putting that silver spring. I don't know, I can't say Amazon really did it, but it looks like Amazon put silver springs in and put in a very nice decorative wall, which I was estimating 10 to 12 feet and I think it's even more So anyway, yeah, I think the request is very much needed. Thank you. Ms. Boxster. I do have a little bit of a comment. There is a bicycle repair station right up by the other gas station on the trail, just off the trail, and just come from a logical standpoint, having it there with a bus stop sort of makes sense because you've got people in the neighborhood that may be riding to get the bus or even riding to get to the trail. So it's not as frivolous as it looks. Thank you. I didn't know that. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that information. Anyone else? Mr. Mickler? Could you speak a little bit to us? I guess you had a conversation with the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee. That part does sit a little oddly with me, that we have neighbors that depend on the water. They're not allowing gas stations in the aquifer area, yet we are not depending on the water and are putting them in right over their aquifer area. We say no to gas stations on almost every plan we approve in this area. So could you maybe share what your viewpoint is on that? Sure. We had a very good discussion with the committee, and they were very candid, said we have never and will never approve a plan for fuel center, fuel station anywhere over the aquifer. And we're not, I said it very politely and very professionally, we're not going to start now. So you've got a great project, but that's our position on fuel stations. The other thing, I think, as you note, there are, particularly in this area, there are fuel stations. There's a brand new fuel station right on the corner, Citation and Newtown, out at the interstate. There are a number of fuel stations that are there. There are a number of fuel stations further back in. And the technology, and we went through a lot, and Tom referred to this, we went through this at the Wellhead Protection Committee, and went through the technology involved, and you're right, human error always is an issue. But the current technology with double walled tanks, with lined pits, with constant monitoring, and there is a monitoring facility, not here, but goes 24-7 on all of the Kroger fuel stations to detect leaks, if any be. They have, as they advised us, to our knowledge, we have never had an underground tank storage leak at any of our fuel centers. We have had spillage on the surface where somebody overfills a tank or pulls a pump out sooner than should be or leaves it on. But those are very minimal. Those are kept to, those are cleaned up very rapidly. but we have a very good track and safety record with regard to fuel storage and dispensation. So recognizing that it is what it is, we need fuel, this area needs fuel. You can do it as safely as you can. And that was a position of the committee. They have not and will not issue an approval for a fuel station over the aquifer, whether it's in Fayette County or Scott County. But they're not here to voice strong concerns either, and they indicated they would not be. Okay, thank you, Mr. Turner. Ms. Worth? One more question, and you may not be able to answer this one, but back to Mr. Mickler's concerns about the number of parking spaces. We've got two, I assume, sort of comparable size stores, Richmond Road and Beaumont. Would you have any idea how many parking spaces are provided for those two stores? I think they are comparable. Comparable. I'm not saying they're exactly square foot to parking space, but they are comparable. Tom, do you know? Yeah. She's talking about apples. Comparable. Yeah, that's comparable at those stores. Just so we know what we're comparing apples to apples there. Right. Okay, Mr. Turner? I think we don't have any more questions. Thank you. Do we have anyone in the audience? I don't see. Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission. Further questions or a motion? Yes, sir, it's open. Mr. Chairman, well as a footnote, I'd say Mr. Turner, it would be nice to have charging stations located in those big areas and I'll say that to the staff as well. With that in mind, I move for approval of PLN MJCP 23-80 Newtown Springs Unit 1, lot 10 with the 18 conditions provided by staff. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Okay. Please vote Villagranicus. Sorry, sorry. Any discussion? Mr. Mickler. Yeah, I have a comment here and it's that I really appreciate what Kroger brings to an area. I really like being a neighbor of Kroger. I really truly feel that as a built environment and built form, we need to be getting away from the massive single levels parking lots. The plan here calls for an enormous number of parking spaces, with none of them being underground, structured, on the roof, or truly hidden behind any building. And the gas station just is sort of an emphasis on the point in the aquifer area. And so as the motion is right now, I mean, I would vote in favor of the grocery store being here. But this plan tells me that we have a lot of work to do still as a city with our regulations. And I do think that we need to have a conversation after this about, is there a threshold that we need to start insisting that not everything be single level surface parking as we try to maximize how our land and city are used. Thank you, Mr. Miglin. Okay, Mrs. Worth? Yeah, I'd just like to go on the record of supporting Mr. Mickler's comments. We talked in the comprehensive planning process a lot about asphalt lakes and trying to prevent asphalt lakes, but we've got one here. So I agree we've got some work to do. Thank you. But I'm not going to oppose the Kroger. It is a food desert, and people need fresh food out there. Okay. If there aren't any more discussions, we can vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Thank you all very much. Okay. We have a waiver. We got two more. We have a waiver. We got the waiver. Mr. Wilson's taking care of that. Okay, do we need a separate motion for the planning commission to make some findings? We don't need that, or do we? We do? On the waiver. We need two more. Okay. One's for the waiver and one's for the big box. Okay, got you. We'll do the big, okay, we'll do the waiver. I move that we approve the waiver as presented by the applicant for PLN MJDP 23-80 Newtown Springs, Unit 1, Lot 10. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Okay, by Mr. Owens. I want to clarify that you included Mr. Turner's request to denote no vehicular access, correct? Okay, we'll include that. I didn't know exactly where that was, but that's okay. Thank you. On page three, just add vehicular, no vehicular access. Wrong. Number one. Okay. So we got a motion and we got a second by Mr. Owens. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Okay, the motion passes unanimously. Mr. Wilson. Okay, I also further move that that we approve the findings that the development plan complies with the big box design standards. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Owens. Any further discussion to that motion? I would say one thing, Mr. Chairman, I was looking at Mr. Graham poll because I wanted to know if it was architecturally nuanced. Don't put Graham on the spot like that. Graham, don't answer that question. Good. Okay, we'll vote via Granicus then. Okay, motion passes. Mr. Turner now, thank you again. Okay. Put us on page eight of the agenda. PLNMAR 23-23. I think we missed something. I think we good, right? Yeah, yeah, I think so now. Keep me. We got this right here. I don't know if there's any other supplemental stuff connected with this. Did you read about that? No, I didn't. I don't take the papers. Oh, no. I just read the staff report. They might have a patient before the permit. And the building inspections. And I had a. Oh. So they built it anyway. Storm damage. They haven't been able to get the approval to redo it. It took me months to redid it anyway. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The next item on our agenda is a ND1 amendment request. So this follows a lot of the same procedures as a zoning map amendment, but with a few key differences. So I will go ahead and explain that as we go through the meeting itself. But this is a request by George Burke, and it is to modify the Chevy Chase ND1 requirements. for the property at 207 Hart Road. This is within the Chevy Chase Indy one. It's approximately a quarter of an acre in size. This specific request deals with accessory structure square footage and specifically wants to increase that from 800 square foot for this particular property to approximately 1,100 square feet. So here we have the location of the subject property. A little difficult to see, but it's this little white speck located on Hart Road. So this is Tate's Creek Road as it joins in the Chevy Chase area. Hart Road bisects it here. Zooming in a little bit closer, we see the zoning of the subject property in the surrounding area, which is all solidly single-family residential within the R1C. The Chevy Chase ND1 overlay was established in 2008 and created some additional design standards that apply to all of the properties that opted for that. So this was done at sort of a community level, at the neighborhood level back in 2008 with some additional properties being added in later. But it established standards that apply to both the principal structures as far as design and sort of character there, but also applied to accessory structures. There was some concern that some of these lots were being overbuilt or the accessory structures were growing out of scale with kind of the community that had been established there since the Chevy Chase neighborhood was developed in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. So this is where those general restrictions are coming from. Here we have an aerial view that shows the rest of the residential development as well as the existing school along Tate Street Road where Hart Road is running adjoining to it. Here we have a view of the subject property. so this is taken from the street. So the subject property itself consists of a single-family residence. There'll be a site plan that gets brought up momentarily that shows the accessory garage and the attached shed, as well as the applicant's structure that they're seeking additional square footage in order to adapt. So here we have a view of the site plan that was submitted in conjunction with this request. Hart Road is running here with a single-family residence. The driveway to the site curves around the edge and is served by a rear garage and a rear shed that's attached to the garage. Building records and PVA records indicate that those were built around the same time that the house was built in the 1940s. You'll notice to the rear that there is an accessory structure shown. That is an accessory pergola, and that while it is open air, because it is anchored on a solid foundation, It is considered an accessory structure for the purposes of building inspection and the way that planning evaluates it. So the entirety of the site, based on the limits that were established in 2008, would be 800 square feet. So all structures, including the existing garage, the existing shed, and any other development that occurred on the property except for the house itself, is limited to that 800 square feet as well as the additional design components with that. Here we have a view of the applicant's proposed design, so this has already been constructed. I'll give you a little bit of the background as we look at some of the other photos of the property, but this structure has been built, and it currently exceeds the allowed amount in the zone. So it's an open-air pergola that is designed in order to protect this swimming pool, an infinity pool located in the rear of the property. So here, to give you an idea of sort of how the property has changed over time, This is an aerial view that was taken in 2010, right before the current owner of the property purchased it. PVA records indicate that the property was purchased in 2012. Here we have the property as exists today. So the structure that was added has done so subsequent to when the Chevy Chase ND1 was established. As far as sort of the history on the site, in 2021 there was a building permit that was applied for with building inspection to establish a pergola in the rear of the site. That was flagged by building inspection at the time before it could be issued, stating that there was an issue with the amount of size and that this exceeded and that work couldn't be done. So at that time, the contractor withdrew the application, and that particular permit was withdrawn. Some point between them, a structure was constructed in the rear without a permit that was then subsequently damaged by some severe weather that we had in the area. The applicant here is actually the contractor, not the property owner, that came in and installed this pergola subsequent to that initial damage to whatever structure was installed after that period. So the initial structure was never permitted, and then the structure that was completed subsequent went through almost the entirety of its building process before it was flagged by a building complaint that that work hadn't had a permit either. So in the process of applying for the permits for the construction of the structure you see outlined in the aerial image there, that's when, once again, the ND1 requirements were kicked in and were evaluated and were found that this was exceeding those requirements. And so this is the method to remedy that particular situation. other than removing existing square footage on the garage or the attached shed there in order to accommodate all of those without any removal requires coming to this particular body. So the standard that they are wanting to amend is standard number six in the Chevy Chase ND1, changing that 800 square feet to 1,100 square feet. The accessory structure as proposed meets all of the other requirements that pertain to accessory structures, but it is the 1100 that they are finding issue with. When we're evaluating ND1 standards, it's a little bit different than the normal criteria you look at. This is not a question on whether something complies with a comprehensive plan, and this does not go to council. So this is an instance where you all are the final decision makers on whether or not to grant an exception for this particular property. There are some specific criteria that you evaluate, somewhat similar to a variance, in evaluating these modifications to the ND1, mainly that you will finding that this is not going to impact the public health, safety, or welfare, alter the character of the overlay, or cause a hazard or nuisance to the public. Furthermore, when you're considering that, you're going to consider if it's an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the overlay. And so as you're thinking of this, you're thinking about if this amendment is a result of any special circumstances Circumstances that apply to the property, is there anything unique here that justifies this when this restriction applies to all of the other homes and the Chevy Chase ND1 kind of equally? The second, if this provision is depriving the applicant from reasonable use of the property, is limiting them to 800 square feet, causing them an inability to use their land or an unnecessary hardship, see that this isn't the result of the applicant's own actions, that this number is being exceeded, and that the general input and preservation goals are being met. And so in deciding this or taking a look at this in staff's evaluation, we found that it wasn't an unreasonable, or found that it was not going to negatively impact the health, safety, or welfare, but where staff found issue was that it was not an unreasonable circumvention of the ND1 overlay restrictions. Staff found that there wasn't any special circumstances demonstrated for the property other than the desire to have this additional space. The applicant wasn't able to demonstrate that being limited to only 800 square feet of accessory structure space was depriving them of the full use of their property or creating an unnecessary hardship. And the third, the actions were results of actions taken after the ND1 had been established, and that previously the property owner and the previous contractor at this site had been alerted that constructing this as proposed would not work within the current ND1 overlay restrictions. So staff, while finding that there wasn't a necessary danger to the public health here, is recommending disapproval for the reasons you see on screen. So I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time. There is no corresponding development plan, so you are strictly ruling on this ND1 modification. Any questions for staff? Mr. Owens? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel, help me, how we're getting from 800 to 1,100 square feet. You mentioned, it's going to be part of my question, there's a garage, which is an accessory structure. There's a shed that's an accessory structure, and now this. are we combining all of that so there would be allowed 800 square feet but because the size of it they're 300 square feet over yes so the the 800 has to accommodate all of the structures on site so that is including the existing garage the existing shed that's attached to that as well as the the footprint of the the open air pergola all of that has to be um has to be accommodated there. Okay, thank you. So in looking at the PVA it says that there's a pool that's 150 square feet. It's, is it not, it doesn't look like, I don't know if it's not showing the shed or what, but what's the 150 square feet? I assume that that is the actual infinity pool itself that was installed. So when you put the structure over the top of it, you're not negating any of that square footage? I'm kind of confused at what's what. Yeah, I don't think that the infinity pool itself was counted in that particular aspect. Yeah. Yeah, on the PVA, I'm only seeing 576 square feet for the garage. and then it says 150 for Gwinnett Pool. Yeah, the PVA, we're not able to control the PVA listing. So what we are considering here are the existing garage, the accessory shed that's attached to that, as well as the actual structure itself on the pergola. Any further questions? Okay, thank you. Yes sir, step up to the podium. I'm a bit underdressed, I was wearing a tool belt today. My name is George Burke. I own Vast Design and Construction. We are a small business design and construction firm specializing primarily in residential additions, renovations, and outdoor spaces. I have some packets if I may approach the committee. I just shared these as I had gone on kind of a grassroots campaign door-to-door to you know about it was 103 maybe 105 residences in the Chevy Chase neighborhood just to relay kind of the history behind this issue. I do want to thank Planning and Zoning for holding my hand through this process. This is very new to me. We were brought on to repair an existing structure that protects an exercise pool for the client and his two children who are avid swimmers. And if I may say, and words may escape me, but I'm going to attempt to make a case for the line items that have resulted in disapproval. This is subjective, not objective truth. And I'm sure these guidelines for this Indy 1 overlay are valid. And having grown up on Hart Road in the 80s, I bore personal witness to the development that occurred in the 90s and early 2000s. And it is not lost on me the importance of this ND1, these rules and regulations. And that I had a personal or family stake in it. The exercise pool was being inundated with falling branches, Walnuts, the like, creating a safety hazard for the kids in particular. The parents weren't very comfortable allowing them to use it during most months with the exception of some time in the summers. In addition, the husband, Dr. Lau, as a physician and expressed concern training unnecessarily in public spaces in this kind of post-COVID world. But again, that's up to him and his family and how they choose to kind of live their day to day. I have no real opinion on that. So we were brought in to repair this pergola and place a polycarbonate roof on it. I have done many projects with LFUCG. I work closely with building inspections. I take the need for permitting extremely seriously. I have been in, as a practicing architect for 10 years and under the marquee of other contracting firms in this business for 20. So again, I want to assure you I do not take this lightly. The takeaway lesson for me as a small business owner, this is our sixth year business, is not to assume that when you're brought into a property that it has been vetted and approved. So that should go without saying, but I made the mistake of touching this thing without asking that question. I'm also certain that Dr. Lau and his wife, and again, they are not to be held harmless, as they are the property owners. But I made this point during the preliminary committee meeting that as a professional, I feel it's my responsibility to guide my clients through the process. And if something has been rejected, why that has happened, when it happened, and what we can subsequently do about it. And again, this is hearsay, but the idea that Dr. Lau would knowingly proceed with this construction doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And again, maybe beside the point for what we're discussing today. as far as special circumstances unique conditions which i would almost tie to the limitations of this this 800 square feet you know this home and its two-car garage and storage you know are relatively original to that site as is my understanding as well perhaps it is a luxury to be able to park your car in a two-car garage. I suppose it is. But I'm more concerned about the safety and welfare of the use of that exercise pool. I'm emotionally attached to all my work, so no, I don't want to see this torn down. And I'm not really in a position, I'm not a public speaker, I'm not a litigator, I'm not a lawyer. I just like to draw and build beautiful things. At least that's my opinion. And this is one of them. I've already begun to plan for scenarios that might still allow us to keep this pergola. Of course, that will often be vetted by building inspections. The financial repercussions of this thing existing in the first place will be relatively immense. we have roughly you know 35 40 thousand dollars tied up in the pergola to begin with again probably a moot point and what it will take to certainly modify that garage perhaps the storage i'm sure will will require some some cost analysis by me anyway um that is That's all I've got for you. I do appreciate you taking the time to listen to this spiel again, some of you. And I conclude my presentation. Thank you guys. Thank you. Do we have any questions or comments for the applicant? Okay. I do have one comment. I think I saw on the packet that you did have an email from, I guess, a neighbor who was in agreement with changing the... Can you hear me now? Yes, I can hear now. I believe I saw on the packet there was an email from a neighbor that was in agreement with the property, I guess, changing the zoning variance. Is that correct? That was on one email I saw. As it applied to this particular property, we had some measure of support from the community. There were a few emails in support of keeping the pergola. I apologize, I do not have that documentation with me today. Mr. Crum can speak to perhaps positive or negative feedback. But my door to door campaign didn't result in any of that negativity. And I did receive a few emails. I mean, there were 103 or 105 residences, and two emails may not sway the committee's opinion. But I did receive some measure of positive support for keeping the pergola. I guess in situations like this, a lot of times, no news is good news. Was there very much, yeah, was there very much or was there any, I guess, strong opposition? Did anybody write you and say absolutely not and here's the reason why? I can look in the eye and say I received no negative feedback as it pertained to the pergola. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Ms. Worth. Yeah, I'm just going to say as a former Neighborhood Association President, I know how hard it was to get the ND1 overlays passed. And I think the pergola is beautiful. And you have no way of knowing whether code enforcement talked to the owners or the original builders between your contact with them and theirs. My concern is that if we don't support the ND1, we're creating a precedent that would damage the ND1, which you know is important for that area. I'm a former small business owner. I've screwed up. I've paid the price a few times and I'm really sorry about that. But, you know, ND1s are, if we're going to have the standards, we've got to be careful about creating exceptions to them, I think. I agree. Thank you. Ms. Collins. I've got one question for the applicant. And with the renovation, the repair, was it expanded in any way? Did it increase in size in any way? In height, in height. It did in height? Yes, sir. Okay, all right then. For staff, just to be fair and balanced here, I think I read this is coming about because of a neighborhood complaint? This request originated as a result of a complaint of work occurring without a permit. So the building inspection sort of kicked off the review of this site, and then once staff was keyed in on the building permit review process, that's where, once again, the 800-square-foot ND1 was sort of identified. So, yes, a building complaint for work without a permit. Okay. I would just comment. I would have to agree with Ms. Worth. I do believe I was here when this ND1 went through, and there was a fair amount of work that went into it. Any ND1 requires an extensive amount of work, and I, too, would be concerned about, as our wonderful former commission member would say, the unintended consequences if this went forward. So, that's just a comment. Okay, the floor is open. Mr. Owens for a motion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Burke, I empathize with you because in effect what you're doing is asking for forgiveness as opposed to permission as such and I understand that. And the pagoda looks really good and what have you. But I think it would have had more force if the community itself had indicated in some a collective way that they were willing as opposed to just a simple thing because these NDA overlays are difficult. But with that said, I'm going to recommend that the commission supports the staff's approval, staff's position of disapproval for the information for the indications of the facts provided by staff related to the, what is this, PLNMAR 23-23. Okay. Second. All right, so we got a motion as presented by staff. And we have by Mr. Wilson, a second by Mr. Owens. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Mr. Burton. Thank you, thank you, thank you. No, thank you for coming, man. That was a tough one. Excuse me, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next meeting will be on Thursday, February 15th. It will be a Planning Commission work session, and we will be in the third floor of the Phoenix Building. We look forward to seeing you all then. Thank you. Thank you. What's our agenda? We have scheduled the multifamily design. the multifamily design guidelines will be the main event on the agenda. There may be some other things as well. Okay. Okay, well, meeting is adjourned. Thank you. We're all the way