To order is March 14th, 2024, and it's 1.30. First on the agenda, I'd like to bring to the attention of the commission, can we get the approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit? That is actually on page 11 of the agenda, item C. If there's no questions, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the performance bonds and letters of credit as outlined on the memorandum from staff. Thank you, Mr. Davis. And we have a second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Next, we'll go back to page one. We have the approval of minutes, and that's the February 8th, 2024 minutes. The floor is open for a motion for approval of minutes. It's not working. Is it not working? No. Ms. Worth. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the February 8th, 2024 minutes as submitted by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Okay, seconded by Ms. Boxdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes with two abstentions. Thank you. Agenda item three, postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. I have three postponements to request. The first one is on page four, item B, PLNMJDP 23-64, Belmont Farm Citation Center. On this one, I would ask for a two-month postponement to your May 9th hearing. I believe that's right. And the reason is we're doing a complete overhaul of this plan, so we need time to get this ready to present to you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. So we have a motion for, excuse me, a recommendation for a two-month postponement. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move. Sorry. Mr. Chair, I move for two-month postponement of plan MJDP 23-64. Second. Elmond Farms. Second. Thank you. We have a second by Mr. Wilson. If there aren't any further discussion to that motion, please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. On page 8 of your agenda, item I, PLN MJDP 24-10. Distillery, District West, Unit 1. We would ask for a one-month postponement to your April 11 hearing. We're going over some options with the owner on whether to put the building on piers or do fill. And depending on the outcome of that decision, it could change the path that we're going. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, move to postpone PLNMJDP 2410, Distillery District West Unit 1, until the April 11th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. And finally, on page 9 of your agenda, item J, PLNMJ, DP24-11, Eidol Hour, Unit 1, Section 2, Track Day. On this one, we would ask for a one-month to your April 11th meeting. We need to ask for a waiver, so we've got to go through the process of that. Okay, thank you, Mr. Carter. The floor is open for a motion for that recommendation. I move for postponement of PLNM JDP 2411 Idle Hour Subdivision Unit 1, Section 2, Track A, to the April 11th meeting as requested by the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. You're welcome. Motion passes unanimously. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm Chris Clendenin. I am here on Quintana Estate, which is on page two, item C of your agenda. It is PLN 24-1. I'd like to ask for a one month postponement until your April 11th meeting date. We need to file a request for a waiver and work out one or two other issues with the staff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clint Dennis. Do we have any questions? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Yeah, one more. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chair, I'll move for a postponement of Plan MJ SUB 24-1 Quintana Estates. until the April 11th hearing. Second. Thank you. We have a second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote for your Granicus. Mr. Owens? Sorry. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley of the partners. If we could turn to page two, first two items, A is Major Subdivision 19-3, Tuscanee unit 14, and Major Subdivision 19-5, Tuscanee unit 11, phase two. We request a withdrawal of both of these. Okay, Mr. Kaley. We have a recommendation for withdrawal on these two items. Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move that the PLN MJS, SUB 19-3, Tuscany Unit 14, as well as PLN MJS, SUB 19-05, Tuscany Unit 11. Both of those be withdrawn. Second. Okay, so we have a motion and a second by Mr. Davis, Jonathan Davis. If there's not any discussion to that motion, please vote via Granicus. Okay, Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Are there any other postponements or withdrawals? If not, staff? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, staff has one item to bring to your attention. On page three, under development plans, item A, this is major development plan 23-50, Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1. The applicant has contacted staff to request a one month postponement. There are some family medical issues that are being dealt with. Okay, thank you. Floor is open for that motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one month postponement to our April 11th meeting of PLN-MJDP 2350. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Okay. All right. So, staff, Ms. Wade. Good afternoon, Chairman Forrester, members of the commission. We do have a few items on our agenda today that qualify, sorry about my voice, for the consent agenda. So what we'll do is read those out loud, and if there's anyone in the audience that wants to have any of them heard, you'll raise your hand and we can pull those from the agenda. agenda. So these items qualify because they're recommended for approval by the subdivision committee without conditions related to discussions. The first one appears on page five of your agenda, item D. That's PLN MJDP 24-1, Ramsey Sullivan Property Unit 3, Lot 1, for property located at 2530 Kearney Ridge Boulevard. Next item is on page 7, item G, PLNMJDP 24-6 for the Givens property, lot 10. This is for a Valvoline instant oil change for property located at 2210 Georgetown Road. And then lastly on page 8, item H, PLN MJDP 24-9 for the Riddell Plaza Lot 3, also known previously as the Parker property. And this development plan does cover several lots but is primarily for 1108 South Broadway. So anyone that wishes to have any of these three plans heard today? I see none. Chairman Forster, the commission can take all of these collectively today. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. So the floor is open for a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented. Ms. Barstead. Mr. Chair, I move to accept the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. All righty, so that should put us on page five, PLNMJDP 23-76. Just before we get started, if you are here for the Quintana estates, that one was postponed until April 11th, 2024. Just want to make sure, I know we have some folks here. There we go. Okay. The last time we talked about this, this has been a couple months now, we talked about this. this property is located off of harrodsburg road mc right here's harrodsburg road we have palomar neighborhood and if you for a go further down here we have that palomar shopping center off of man war uh... we've been looking at this plan uh... for uh... the retail area for the shops that you can see on the plan and the parking around it we had discussed all this and the question was the common open space after working uh... with them and with boyd sue who's working with the open space reviewing that we did come to an agreement that we did find enough for the common open space to meet the minimum requirements that was one of the issues that we had on here when we were talking couple weeks ago or couple months ago The other issue was to discuss the parking in the green space in here. And this is where we had talked about what was presented at the time of the zone change, which is shown on the left, and then what they're proposing on the right. And that was our question that we had left as far as discussion. And so with that, we have just the standard conditions. We also have, you have revised conditions on the purple page. And then we also had planning commission makes a finding for the access easement because the access easement, let me go back here. This is the access easement that takes you from the residential over to the rest of the shopping center. So we did have a findings report that was presented with this. So I will open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions for me. Okay, do we have any comments or questions for staff? Thank you. Applicant. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I am Fred Eastridge with Vision Engineers. We have, my company has been working diligently with Boyd Sewell to work on the open space and common open space to make it meet the subdivision and zoning ordinance regulations, which we have done. And we have a driving force behind this is the owner of the property has a nice contract with a company to take a building here and open it up. And their requirement in the contract has made a certain requirement of 213 parking spaces they require in that area. So we have massaged the plan and put it into the best form that we can to meet the owner's requirements and the subdivision and zoning ordinance requirements. I would like to ask for approval of this plan. And if you have any questions, I'm going free to ask. Also, Kyle Champion is here. He works for the owner's company. career company he's in the back and if you have any questions of him more than i'm sure he'd be more glad than to answer thank you sir uh commission do we have any questions for the applicant yes miss meyer um i i'd like to say first of all i was not here for the february meeting but i have viewed the the meeting where this case was heard so i feel comfortable that i can participate today um my question is um is there any possibility of of meeting the requirements by your your potential tenant through a shared parking agreement um so that some of these spaces could be eliminated perhaps no ma'am they've asked i'm sorry ma'am and we could get back some of the green space no man the contract way i have heard and read it is in that if you can you back out i don't know oh the area north of the access road where the two red buildings are that is where they designated they want 213 spaces and they are taking that building right there proportion of that building right there and they were very contracts very clear on what they would require and that is to to have parking and 213 spaces all in this area. Okay. Yes, Mr. Mickley. In this plan, we still have a significant reduction in what appears to be the usable green space. Can you walk us through your conversation with staff on where you found the, I mean, I see where you've marked up the green space, but in the conversation we're having, we're talking about the usable green space. Can you walk us through where you're identifying that and maybe how you expect to make that indeed usable and used by the patrons? Yes, sir. I'll try my best. Matt Carter is here with me. He was in more of those conversations than I was. We've had several conversations. The first plan that we submitted was way over in open space. So in reducing the open space, it got to the point where we were above it and meeting it. The back area back here, we have a gazebo, an area, and a walkway down to the building. that could use that you know can use that back there and said this is going to be more restaurant and uses like that and then we have a common open area over on this side here and in the inside so we've worked diligently on it and trying to meet it and we have met it and we have satisfied the staff on it. The it is commercial area the uses. Only time I've seen people wanting to use open space in a commercial area is to go smoke or to wait for a table. And we've provided that we've got an area area right between the two buildings. That is going to be paid and green and a little green for people to have outdoor seating and a set and a lounge and to enjoy the area is what i try to say matt do you have anything you were on it more than i was no really i just wanted to add that uh it's well matt carter vision engineering i wanted to point out and fred did this in between the two buildings was a common area and we do anticipate a lot of people walking in from the neighborhood behind it so we wanted to provide the opportunity to have a big open area between the buildings where they could gather and and there'll probably be some tables out there from the restaurant but also benches where people who are waiting could could hang out in that area Also, another thing I want to bring up is that we don't know who the other tenants are, and one of the concerns of the one tenant they have under contract is what if that's all restaurants, and it really could require a lot more parking, and that's one of the reasons we wanted to make sure we got 213 to the north side of the access road because we do anticipate these being restaurants. Yes. I've got a question, I guess, for Mr. Carter. It's not a question, but I'm looking for, I guess, another statement that proves that you all have met the required usable green space. So we've heard from the staff and we've heard from you that you are meeting the requirement. I understand that my fellow commissioners would like to see more green space, but my thoughts are that if you meet the requirements, you meet the requirements. Can you please confirm again to us that you do meet the requirements? I can confirm. one of the requirements that the staff had was that we provide an exhibit demonstrating how we met the open space requirements. We did provide that. There was some back and forth between us and Boyd about how it was going to be usable. So we did make some changes. I think we showed benches and tables and things like that on the exhibit. Boyd was comfortable with it. And so from that point on, we knew we met the open space. And that was, I believe, put on a cellar and provided to the staff as well. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Matt, Fred, one of you all, or both. Just as a follow-up with what Ms. Myers was asking as far as the losing the green space, which obviously it looks like you have. To me, it seems like the discussion has been focused around one tenant, one building. but am I hearing the 213 encompasses the two buildings? It does. It's the potential of the two buildings and the one tenant. And you have to keep in mind that when we create these development plans, initially we don't know who the tenants are going to be. There may be one sometimes. Sometimes often there is no tenants. and so as the tenants come in we try to meet you know they're going to have some requests and we try to meet those so because of that the plans are amended and they're amended quite often and that's you know to meet the tenants needs so and that's the case here okay and then um secondly you've got two buildings and it looks like you've got patios adjoining each building in in the center of the two buildings are those going to be just common open space or would they be reserved for possible dining from either one of the tenants both I mean they can be we can have overlap in our open spaces so yes they could be all the above and i don't know if it really matters but with what fred mentioned i think i heard him say you know waiting areas common areas people smoke and so forth but if there's dining going on there they won't be smoking i don't think okay thank you sir mr worth Just clarification, we've gone to a new visual up there. What is this we're looking at that's different from? I believe this is the graphics that the staff reviewed where we identified the areas that were met the required open space. and in some instances you'll see like a crosshatch pattern on it with green under it that's where it meets vegetative open and usable open they can overlap so um so we do meet both this is the exhibit you were asked to to prepare this is the common area open space the orange the orange areas Oranges are the common open space. Okay. Orange is the common area identified, yes. So. Okay. Do we have any further questions for the applicant? Not seeing any. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Do so by stepping up to the podium. If not, bring it back to the commission. Any further discussions that need to be had? Not seeing any, I'll open the floor up for a motion. Got, yes. If there is no more discussion, which I don't think there is, I'm going to make a motion for approval of PLNMJDP 23-00076, Shriners Hospital Masonic Temple Association of Lexington. With the 18 conditions and approval recommendation from subdivision and staff. I think it's 17. We've got the revised recommendation. 17 that is here on the pink sheet. Thank you. Okay. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Okay, seconded by Ms. Boxdale. Any further discussion to that motion? Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, 16 and 17, is that being changed to resolve or? I don't think we can leave it as discussed. Mr. Nichol. I'm comfortable with the recommendations that were provided by staff, unless you see any other reason to change it from discuss to resolve. We don't, go ahead Mr. Wilson. Well, yeah, I think the staff would address that. The number 17 and 18, the obvious question is, should that not be returned to resolve as opposed to discuss? That's the question. You had this discussion today, which is why they're on the item in that way. So yes, they should be resolved. You've had the discussion, you've heard the discussion. If you are comfortable with what you heard, then you would recommend approval and change those to resolve. Do you want to amend your motion? Thank you for that clarification. We'll amend the motion for 16 and 17, the language to discuss to be changed to resolved. Okay, thank you. And Ms. Boxdale, you still seconding that motion? Okay. All right, any further discussion? If not, please vote via Granticus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All righty. We have a finding. Should put us on page seven. Before we move on. Sorry, sorry, I'm sorry. We do have findings. There's a finding. Easement findings. We're moving on. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. Okay. With that, I'm looking at the, I'm going to make a motion for approval of the revised staff. I'm looking at the wrong one. No, it's this one. Thank you. Recommend approval for the findings for use of the access season for PLN, MJDP 23-00076, Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple. Okay, we have a motion, do we have a second? Second. Okay, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Hearing none, please vote Villagranakis. Okay, that motion, Mr. Davis, Jonathan Davis. He voted. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Now I can say thank you. Okay, put us on page seven now. PLNMJDP 24-4. We do have revised staff recommendations for this one. Phase six, did I skip one? I did, I did, I'm sorry. PLNM JDP 24-2. That's right. And we do have some citizens that will be speaking on that today. Catherine Perkins and Patty Dross, they will be allocated 12 minutes to speak when their time is, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The item is on page six of your agenda, item E. This is a major development plan, 24-2, Jones Cottrell property. Oh, I'm not, okay. Are we ready? Oh, there we go. All right. I wasn't sure how much control I actually had over this technology. So, here we are. So again, this is Major Development 24-2, Jones Cottrell property, and Joyland Crossing. This is a development plan, a final development plan for property out along Paris Pike in this location. Here you can see Parkside Drive, Rogers Road, out to the north you'd be headed towards Paris. This is the railroad right of way that runs through here. And here we have old Paris Pike or old north limestone extended that comes in under the railroad here and comes into Paris Pike. The interstate is just to the left off this rendering. That would be the interchange with the interstate at that location. This is a final development plan for an apartment complex that had its own change just recently approved by you and now by the council. They are proposing, as you can see, buildings separate around the perimeter, primarily around the perimeter of the property. This is a four and a half acre property net acreage. They're proposing 165 units in these buildings and 194 parking spaces. Now you can see in the interior again, it's a triangular shaped piece of property with the parking. And then they also have garages that are under the building. So they've got combined parking in this particular development. Access is here at this location across from Rogers Road. There is an emergency access to be gated down here off of the old Parris Pike section right through there. A lot of the discussion on this property was about buffering, and they are going to provide a buffer. Let me see something. Okay, that's not what I was looking for, but that's okay. The buffering, there was discussion on Parris Pike and the importance to get the appropriate landscape buffering along Parris Pike. Now you may recall some of you in this discussion with the zoning as well as on the final development plan, but on the preliminary plan there's a large, large 30-foot Kentucky American water easement running down through here. So you can't plant on that easement. Kentucky American water won't let you. If you do it, they're going to tear it up and get rid of it. They're not going to allow it. So they had to adjust for that. So they are going to provide buffering along that frontage with some trees, fence, things like that that will fit. It will be back off of that easement. In conjunction, there was a lot of concern about this relationship with the residential and I think a farm operation in this location. So they are proposing an enhanced buffer along that border. Article 18 does have a requirement. They are proposing to exceed that requirement with a buffer in that area. Two of the conditions on the plan that you don't see on this particular rendering will be exhibits that will show specifically what will be in those buffers. And that's so that the permitting people and the people, the landscape people, will see that and know what to expect to be put in the ground and on the ground in those locations. There's a stub. This rendering doesn't show it well. But they've stubbed into the adjoining property so that future development, future development, we don't know when it will happen, but development happens. They've set that up so there could be cross access again in an effort to hopefully protect Paris Pike and not have too many access points along that arterial. The amenities are located in the center. They have a clubhouse and a pool. There's an interior pedestrian system that ties the development together, takes them out to the right of way. they are going to build a sidewalk along Paris Pike as well. So there'll be a pedestrian facility along the front of Paris Pike. We had discussed with them and I, right, those are the renderings they provided to demonstrate their compliance with the multifamily design standards. And they will be required to substantially meet these. When they provide an exhibit and show how they're going to meet them, we hold them to a substantial compliance with these. We will allow some material changes and that sort of thing, maybe deemed necessary during the construction of the apartments. That sort of thing happens. They will occasionally have to make changes for various reasons. Graham's looking at me. knows that that happens on these jobs. Architectural issues come up and features come up, materials and material costs. Another issue is of course access to Paris Pike. It is an arterial. In the initial discussions there were various alternatives that have been kicked around and looked at. At this point they are lined up directly across from Rogers Road. This is important because that allows people that are making turning movements to see directly across and see other people that are also making turning movements. The median does not extend into this intersection, so it is an open intersection. One of the aspects of this access, again, and it's a resolve issue on the plan, and that is this full access that they're currently proposing, there's also been discussion about the possibility of moving it, moving it up, having a right in, right out. Now it's important to understand that as part of those discussions, and you've all been party to them lately on Georgetown Road and Versailles Road, right in and right outs work, but only under very specific circumstances. It's been discovered through use and through experience that if they're not in a good location, particularly if they're at the end of a median and that People don't follow them. They abuse it. They drive around them. So there's an issue with those. So at a minimum, the median would have to be extended for a right in and right out to work. And again, this is a state highway. So whatever gets worked out, they're going to have to approve. So there have been discussions. and I know that our traffic engineering department has met with them and talked with them as has the applicant, and they can expand on those conversations because they were directly involved. Staff is very much aware that at this time, this is an acceptable access. From what we understand, there's been discussions about a left turn lane coming into the property. Now, the state of Kentucky, Traffic Department, DOT, they don't like to commit to anything. They'll have discussions with you. But what they tell the applicants is, when you come in and apply for a permit, then we're going to tell you exactly what we are going to require. So that, again, remains in their ballpark. what they deem necessary and what their data tells them they think is appropriate at this location at this time. As you all know, they program improvements as they see the need and as they have the money and as it comes in and they evaluate our arterials, they evaluate the circumstances and the conditions that impact these roads. With that, again, staff is recommending approval of this plan to you. The plan was postponed at your subdivision committee by the applicant due to the zone change hearing had not yet been held, and they felt like that would be the best approach for them at this time. And again, as I mentioned, it's been to the council. The zone change was approved. So now the final development plan is back before you today. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Yes, we have a question. Thank you, Mr. Martin. In the 2017 staff report, it notes that the Paris Pike Corridor Commission approved both the zone change and the development plan. This was in 2017. Has the Corridor Commission, I know they had a discussion about, I think, the zone change. Have they taken a vote on the development plan? It's not part of their authority in this circumstance. It doesn't fall within their purview of review. Okay. I was wondering about that because in 2017, this staff report says it does, but I didn't think it did. The actual overlay itself starts on further out on Parris Pike where they actually weigh in. Not that they're not shy about weighing in on these other developments that are nearby. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Mikkel. Well, I think the development plan that got loaded into Granicus is the one that's up on the screen here. And I can't see any notes or things like that that are normally on the plan. And I'm curious about specifically some of these access notes. So we have the emergency gate, see note 11. And then also I was curious what the language we were putting, what the language on the plan was for these stub outs that you mentioned into the adjacent property. Well, there's no particular language on the stub outs. They just exist on the plan and at any future development. Does it note an easement or anything like that on the plan? Not at this time, no. No, that would come later. What does later mean? As development occurs, it would come later. If a plat comes on this property and we're anticipating one will because the old curb property will be consolidated, we would then review and ask for easements to be created on that plat. But would they have an easement onto this? They could put a proposed easement on here. It doesn't create it. It won't be created until a plat comes through. Is that the normal process for when you do a step out? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. One. Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom, I have a question for you. On the north corner, you know, throughout the prop end, there are very pipes on the side, you see the walls and the dashboards and so forth. But on that north corner, it seems just a broken because nothing at the end that goes the sidewalk that goes you know down one way or another on the side but it stops it where the dumpster is but it doesn't continue on around the court I was wondering should there be are we up here yeah I was wondering if that sidewalk should we continue around the court Yes, and I think that's something that, again, we'll review the final development plan. This rendering does not fully, as Mr. Mickler noticed, the actual development plan itself and some of the notes and some of the other features. But yes, they will have to have a sidewalk connecting out to the right of way, certainly. Okay. All right, not seeing any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Murphy? Coming up and then we go in here. They're going to set this down. Okay, good. How do I get the red dot? Is that okay? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm very pleased today to be representing Joyland Crossing LLC, which is the owner of the property. Corey Johnson and Fabi Singh are with me from Joyland Crossing Company. And I'm proud to say we have had our architects involved in this from day one. They had their architects before they contacted me about representation. Jay Million and Brandon Powell from Million Architecture. Fred Eastridge is here from Vision Engineering. I don't know if Mark McIntosh is our other engineer from Vision is on vacation. As the staff mentioned to you, the Urban County Council approved this zone change last month. It approved the down zoning of this property from essentially B3 down to R4. There was some discussion of whether they should impose conditional zoning restrictions on the property. There was a little bit of discussion on that, but they did not. They did not impose any additional conditional zoning restrictions on the property. As we've mentioned to you before, this is 165 units. I have called this before workforce housing. I'm not going to use that reference today because I understand workforce housing now has a particular definition, which I don't know what the definition is. So I'm going to call it middle-class housing here on this property. It hasn't changed. I just want to make sure I'm right terminology-wise. So it's middle-class housing, and we have, this is, the development plan you're seeing right now is the development plan from 2017. Could we go to the... He's trying to pull it up right now. Okay, pulling up if we can. Okay, they're trying to pull up the current development plan. The colored development plan, which you saw, and there was just some discussion about it, was, I think, based upon the preliminary development plan. It was not the final, because Fred and I were looking at the final as you were discussing on it. We show the stubs into the adjoining property on the final development plan. The dumpster, which was up against the property line, has been moved back as well. So it's slightly different, but I wanted to show it because we do show the stubs into the adjoining property on the current version of the final development plan, which has been filed for some time. I won't show any exhibits while staff is trying to find that exhibit but I'll tell you a little bit more about the property. The landscape buffers which I'll show you when we get to the rendering, we have some slides showing you what we're going to be doing on the landscaping. Along Paris Pike, as Mr. Martin mentioned there is a 30 foot wide Kentucky American waterline easement. This is a easement for the waterline which goes to the Toyota plant. It's a 24 inch, it's a monster of a waterline, 24 inches wide, serves Toyota. And they have a lot more protections. We got this is our final development plan the there got the green dot that's a little more precise here is the property line along the north and as you see here is the stub in the rear and we show the additional stub closer to the front of the property so we have two stubs into the adjoining properties we have a long common property line with a small lot down to this point you can see the neighboring property line coming in right there we have a I can't read quite the number I think 600 feet but this is a two acre lot this is a two acre single-family detached residential lot it's owned our one B so the bulk of our property line is with one two acre lot so into our one B from this point back about a hundred I think that's about a 130 feet as I recall, we adjoin a 12 or 13 acre lot, which wraps around the two acre lot here. Now, I understand there are horses on that property, but that property is zoned R1D, D as in David. So that's already zoned for four single family houses per acre, four or five per acre. This one next to us, the R1B, is zoned for 15,000 square foot lots, two to the acre most likely on this property. So we stub in here to both lots adjoining us, so they will have the ability to have cross access, whichever develops. They don't have to wait for the first or the other one to develop. They both have direct access as requested by the staff and as agreed to by clients to have that in there. We have along the north, and I'll show you a little better exhibit about the landscaping. Along the north, we have a, this stretch, we have a meandering sidewalk through a setback which is at its narrowest right there nine feet, but it's 20 feet through here. And I'll show you what we're planning on planning in there in a minute. And it goes up to Paris Pike up here. This, we've moved the dumpster down here farther away. We have a crosswalk across the stub right there going on down. Now back here in the back along the lot that does have some horses on it, even though it's zoned R1D, and it's just 12 acres, we're not showing any sidewalks. so we won't have any pedestrian traffic back there on that. Our other landscape, which I'll show you, is along Paris Pike. And there we have the 30-acre Kentucky American easement, which, by the way, takes a right-angle turn here. The water line comes through here under the railroad and then takes a right turn and goes up. We don't know exactly where it goes from there, but it's along our entire property. We're using that as a setback because it's 30 feet wide, and Kentucky American, as I mentioned, is very protective about it because it's the line that serves Toyota. We can't plant trees. We can't do much of anything. But we can plant grass, and our architects have designed a grass buffer, which I'll show you in just a second here as well. If we could go to my slides, which are six, my slides six and seven show our landscape buffer area. There we go. All right. This is our cross section along Paris Pike. I've already gone beyond my technological capabilities here, but this is the edge of Paris Pike. This is the edge of right-of-way, which is about 20 feet. This edge of right-of-way, this is the 30-foot easement. We have grasses, a million architectures started with lower grasses going up to higher grasses. Then when we get out of the easement, we can plant a tree, and this is the edge of the building. So this is along Paris Pike. If we could go to the next slide, the last slide. And if you can, there we go, all right. This is the landscape buffer along the northern property line. I want to mention to you that that plan you saw from 2017, where we had a fast food restaurant, a sit-down restaurant, and a convenience store with an attached restaurant, all of which had drive-through windows on them and speakers and all that. We had a five-foot landscape easement along the northern line, five feet. This one is much larger than that, and we have much more planting than is required by the ordinance. We have a five-foot concrete walk, as we mentioned, that meanders through the buffer area at most points. This is a profile. We're going to have deciduous trees planted on 25-foot centers, and then you see the outline of the evergreen trees to be planted on 25-foot centers. So we'll have one tree every 12 and a half feet along that boundary line, which is a wider easement than is required by the ordinance and has more dense planting than is required by the ordinance as well. So this is what we're planting along the northern boundary line. The along the railroad track you had seen our rendering. It's very thick foliage along the railroad track at this point, which will stay there. The railroad right of way is very wide and supplies a good landscape and treed buffer between us and the property behind us. So that's what we're planning on the planning buffer. I'm talking about the three conditions that are at the end of your schedule here. Fourteen is addition of landscape buffer detail for adjacent property. So we will take this detail and put it on the development plan in a manner which the staff approves. The second one was compliance with the multi-family design guidelines, which I'm thoroughly lost on the exhibits now, but you had one of the rendering. I don't know if it's too hard to get back that up. I'll figure which pointer it is. There, well, that's the colored one. There, there, okay. This, and I hope I got, no. There we go. This is our rendering. Now, this does not show our landscape buffers. The purpose of this rendering is to show the staff our compliance with the design guidelines. So we don't show the grassy area through here. We don't show the buffer area. we do show some of the trees along the boundary here, but we don't show it to the greatest extent. But this does show you some of the planting along our common property line with the single-family two-acre lot here and along the railroad track along the back there. And we do have a railroad track there. That's a significant barrier for any piece of property, and it is for us too. As far as the design guidelines go, I spoke to this rendering is the result of discussions we've had for the last six months with the design staff here. Ms. Friedman, before she left, Mr. Saewe has been involved in this from the beginning, and we had a meeting with the design team, Mr. Saewe, Ms. Friedman, and Tom Martin was involved even before we filed the zone change. So this has been a result of a dialogue between our architects and the design staff. Mr. Saeway told me this morning that we do meet the design guidelines, but he will want us to add statistics about the common area on the development plan. He said we showed statistics about the vegetative area, but we need statistics about the common area because they're slightly different under your new ordinance. but that is what we had worked with the staff with on the design guidelines. Last thing the staff has said is resolve access to Parris Pike and that enters a little more discussion about traffic, which has always been a discussion on this plan. If we can go back to the colored development plan. Well, Mr. Martin's I think it was. Yeah, that was for the zone change, but this will serve what we're talking about here. Our main access point is opposite Rogers Road. As you know right now, the curb bar had a pretty wide open access point. They had an access point up here and down here on Old Paris Road. One thing the staff told us first time we came in said, no access on Old Paris Road, you're gonna have to have one access point in and out. So, but the fire department said they need a second place. So we have a emergency gate here for fire access off of Old Paris Road, which will only be used for emergency responders, fire department, police department, ambulances there, and main access point will be here. We have said all along that we will comply with whatever the State Highway Department requires us to do on this opening. Since this was at your subdivision committee a month ago, we've had some further discussions with the Highway Department. They told us they did not feel we needed to have a formal meeting at this time, but they said that after we get our final development plan approved, we may apply for an encroachment permit from the state, and when we apply for our encroachment permit, they will require us to submit whatever other data they want us to submit, and they will decide what type of configuration is at that access point. What they have told us in the past is that they want the access point here because they want it to line up with Rogers Road, so while we do that, we line up our appropriate lanes with Rogers Road here. They have told us informally that it's likely that they will require a left turn lane for southbound traffic on Paris Pike coming in here. They've said not totally sure, but they will tell us when we get our encroachment permit about that left turn lane. They have told us also they may require us to have two lanes coming out, one for essentially right, one for straight or left turn on there. But again, they told us they would deal with that when we submit our formal encroachment permit request. Now, in doing this, it's interesting that the Division of Traffic Engineering has pointed out issues with the existing lane here. I've learned a new word. It's called slip lane. They've told me what it is. This is sort of a right turn lane from Old Paris Road onto Paris Pike, but it's more than that. It's sort of a slip lane, they call it, where instead of slowing down, traffic often speeds up on this slip lane to get in to merge into Paris Pike. Current thinking is that that is not good because it allows faster traffic. And Mr. Filiotru from your Division of Traffic Engineering has asked us to cooperate with perhaps adding some curbing or other work along here to eliminate or change that slip lane to stop or slow down the traffic before it turns onto Paris Pike, because that would make it much safer for pedestrians coming in there. So, we have told him, yes, we would do that and we'll agree to a note. Well, you already have a note number three that we're subject to traffic engineering approval on this, but we're mindful that it will consider that as well. Now I want to point out a couple things and that is that the traffic generated by our development, while it will be additional traffic onto Paris Pike, is about one-fifth, one-fifth the traffic that was going to be generated by the 2017 development plan. In the morning peak hours, we have 75 trips generated by this development. The old development generated 508, 75 versus 508 under the old plan. PM, that's about 1 7th the traffic in the morning being generated by this as compared the BB3. In the afternoon, we generate 92 trips versus the old plan 453. So we generate about one-fifth, one-fifth of the traffic in the PM peak traffic hours. So we generate much, much less traffic than the previous development plan did. There's been discussion at the city council, some of the neighborhood objectors asked the council to turn down the zone change until traffic improvements are made in Paris Pike. It was pointed out at that point that the state doesn't operate that way. We have to submit an encroachment permit, and if there's going to be a traffic signal at Rogers Road, which my clients have volunteered to help pay for, by the way, but if there's a traffic signal up there, the state requires what they call warrants before they will approve a traffic signal. There will be no traffic signal at this location until at least this development goes in where they could have the warrants for traffic signalization. There's been a lot of discussion about traffic accidents on this stretch of Parris Pike. First of all, I want to point out that at the zone change, Mr. Crumb mentioned that the traffic on this stretch is about 19,000 trips a day, which is a lot. And I will say any traffic accident is one traffic accident to me. But compared to some other trip generation around town, Tates Creek Road at Gainesway has about 32,000 trips a day compared to 19,000 here. Newtown Pike at Citation nearby is 48,000 trips a day. Georgetown Road at Citation is 24,000 trips a day compared to 19 here. For Sales Road, inside New Circle is 28,000. Outside near Keeneland it's 45,000. So we're much less than many other arterials. And I'm not even pulling in Nicholasville's 75,000 trips a day to compare that to, but to compare other ones. We're much less than that. And when Mark McIntosh did his research, he found that the existing accidents on this stretch of Paris Pike are 25% less than what the state finds in similar stretches of highway and other portions of the state. And there's accidents out here, I'm not going to deny that. And one accident is too many, but I need to put that in perspective. And we are making this safer by eliminating that access point on old Paris Pike. And as the staff has always told us, we have to have all our access through one access point on Paris Pike, which is opposite Rogers Road. In conclusion, I just want to state that we have been doing what we're supposed to do on this zone change. We've worked with the staff, with the design team before we filed it. We have been in communication with your division of traffic engineering, state highway department. We've had neighborhood meetings on this as well. And I realize this property has been undeveloped for many years and it's difficult to, for some people when they see something that's been vacant for so many years, to see development on it. but we think this is, as we pointed out at the zone change, this is in agreement with the comp plan. We supply middle-class housing on here, which is greatly needed in all areas of our community, and this is a property which has barriers on the sides. We have the railroad. We have Paris Pike. We have two large lots on the north, but we're complying with the design. We're providing access in. And as I've said all along, and my clients have told me all along, we will do what the state tells us to do on access points. If that involves a light, they'll contribute to the light. Turn lanes, they'll do turn lanes. We've done what we were requested to down on Old Paris Road. So we hope you'll approve this. We agree with all staff conditions on your agenda. and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Ms. Dolens? Mr. Murphy, how are you? One question. You've heard of water access or water use of sewer and sewer ability? Well, Fred is the expert on sewer ability. As I understand it, it's going to be coming under, it has to come down here to a pump station located in this area. Is that correct? Can you repeat the question, Mr. Owens? Your microphone is not on. I'm sorry, my microphone wasn't on. Surability, I'm sorry. How is this thing going to be sewered? Mr. Owens? Yes, we have the ability, I've looked at that, sir, to take, I can figure out how to work it. Well, take the sewer down here, then end old Paris Pike to the existing pump station that serves the subdivision down below us. I can't remember its name. But the pump will have to be enlarged with a new motor. I've had the Strafer pumps look at it and that's what they've informed me that needs to be done to serve our development. Thank you, sir. Any further questions for the applicant? Okay, Mr. Owens? I'm sure Mr. Murphy's going to point back to staff and traffic and so forth. So my question would be for traffic and Mr. As far as the access out onto Old Parish Pike, I haven't traveled that many times, not as much lately, but familiar with slip lane and so forth. Knowing that traffic for this development would come out, Old Parish Pike, It just seems to me that it would be best to find access into it off of Old Parish Pike, as opposed to putting traffic out onto North Broadway Parish Pike and then making them come in. Is it even possible, I know emergency access, would it be possible to have just a one way access in? One way into the development at the emergency access? I think last when we were here there was a question about access out. The end would certainly be more achievable than going out. Anything to talk about? Yeah, and I think it's so close to the intersection, that would be something the state would have to approve, because it's essentially in the intersection of what we typically think of as intersection limits. Yeah, like I said, it just seems like it would prevent some traffic from having to go out onto the spike itself. That's fair. Thank you, sir. That's a fair discussion. Thank you, Mr. Owens. If we had any further questions from the commission, I'd like to call up the citizen comments. And I know we did have Ms. Catherine Perkins and Patty Dross. She's speaking, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Am I okay to start? Yes, ma'am, we're ready when you are now. Okay, my name is Patty Drouse. I live in Joyland at 608 Allen Court. Kathy Perkins and I are representing Joyland Neighborhood Association Board of Directors. I am showing you drone video footage taken this early this February at 4 p.m. not at peak traffic time because we needed good daylight it was still winter we needed good daylight for the drone there's a hand-drawn map in your packet to help with orientation to what you are looking at initially there's a view looking south on north broadway with old paris road on the left and Parkside on the right, the interstate in the background. Then it pans north, and 2324 Paris Pike is on the right. We are asking for conditions on this development plan. There's a map in your packet showing Kentucky Transportation Cabinet average daily traffic counts. For brevity, I will say it is roughly 20,000 vehicles per day. There are pages in your packet from the Kentucky State Police website showing annual collisions along the section of North Broadway from the interstate to Kingston Road for 2020 to 2023. The range is 63 to 89 collisions per year. From the video, you can see cars darting in and out from various locations on this short stretch of road. This new development will have 165 apartments and have potentially 165 to 330 cars belonging to residents. Some cars will have to park in Joyland as a result. On workday mornings, many apartment parking lot cars will turn left to go south out of the apartment complex to their jobs. Lex Tran will not stop at this complex. There is no bus stop on Broadway or Paris Pike. The closest bus stop is on Rogers Road, 0.2 miles from the development. Pedestrians will cross Paris Pike to catch a school bus or a city bus, to go to and from their parked vehicles in Joyland, to go to Mary Todd School, to Mary Todd Park, to Dollar General. Vehicles coming southbound from Paris are usually driving at least 5 to 15 miles over the speed limit. Safety is an issue on this road. 2200 Old Paris Road and 2324 Paris Pike is a very difficult piece of property for vehicle, pedestrian, bike, and bus safety due to traffic, road configuration, and conflicting needs. This development plan does not agree with the comprehensive plan, which envisions dense housing with multimodal, transit-oriented development on a corridor place type. But currently, there are no meaningful transit-safe provisions for vehicle, bike, pedestrian, or bus modes. Joyland Neighborhood Association has a strong objection to the fact that insufficient consideration has been given to vehicular, pedestrian, and bike safety. There is no safe way for a vehicle to turn left out of 2324 Paris Pike, nor for pedestrians or bikes to cross the street. At the 2017 B3 zone change, there was a traffic impact study by Zimmerman Traffic engineering. From this study, city transportation staff concluded that signalization of this intersection would be required, as well as other transportation improvements. One page of these planning commission minutes and the printed summary are in your packet. This is still the same road, the same location, with the same issues. Joyland Neighborhood Association is against the development plan without conditions to remedy the transportation issues. We are asking for conditions on this development plan to include a transit safety study be performed, a signalized crossing for pedestrians and vehicles be provided at the Rogers Road intersection subject to the approval of the Kentucky TransCab prior to the move-in date, and communication with Lex Tran and Fayette County Schools to determine what infrastructure measure is needed for Lex Tran and Fayette public school buses to enter and circulate through the property and to meet those criteria. By taking these measures, the development will meet many of the Place Builder 2018 and 2045 goals they currently cannot meet. Some of these are highlighted yellow in your packet. And some of these are accessible pedestrian linkages to transit, Plan for connected multimodal network to adjacent neighborhoods, etc. Development should create and or expand a connected multimodal transportation network. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and now Kathy Perkins will present. Thank you. Thank you, Paula. Thank you, Paula. I was getting nervous. Paula's whispering me. So my anxiety can lower my blood pressure. My name is Catherine Perkins, 258 Swigert Avenue. I am Vice President of the Joyland Neighborhood Association. Chairperson Forrester and members of Planning Commission, thank you for giving us a few extra minutes to talk to you. In the handout I gave you, it's stapled together. I gave you a lot of stuff. But in that handout, there's an email from Garnetta Graham, who lives at 2330 Paris Pike. I encourage you to read it. Her sinkholes in her front yard that are right along the boundary of this property and proposed development with hers. And her privacy are of great concerns for her. There's also a copy of 2045 Corridor Goals and Objectives with highlighted items I feel this development plan does not adhere to. Also, Article 18-3A1, which gives the perimeters for any development along a railroad track. There is also a list of, not a complete list, but a list of conditions we feel are appropriately, are needed and appropriate for this development plan. To start off, I know you've heard that this does not meet the multimodal family design standards. I'm just going to read those to you very quickly. Additionally, AD2 does say that you relate overall height, size, and character of the development to that of adjacent structures and those of the immediate neighborhoods. This obviously does not meet that multifamily design standard. There's nothing within miles that is this high. In fact, the affordable housing, which this is not, across the road on Rogers Road, is only two stories above ground. There's just Windburn's new apartment complex, only three stories. You're proposing four at the beginning of the historic National Award winning Paris Pike Corridor. Also, our purposes for our zoning ordinances do have many things that they state that this final development plan does not meet. It does not promote health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It does not facilitate orderly and harmonious development in their visual and historic character. It does not regulate density of population and intensity of land use. It does not require enough buffering between non-compatible uses. In fact, there's a dumpster on his final development plan in the far corner that abuts right next to the neighboring farm. With no berm, no six-foot fence, and that's it, and a few trees here and there, in my opinion, it doesn't. If it doesn't further fair housing and until access and connectivity are resolved, it does not prevent the loss of light. And it does not protect specific areas of Lexington which need special protection, which is this area. All along the corridor and in my neighborhood as well, in Joyland, we have the Cane Run Watershed, runs either above ground or underground throughout our whole neighborhood. And Parris Pike, you have sinkholes everywhere. There are known sinkholes next door, according to Garnetta Graham. The flood areas in our neighborhood that are still not being mitigated. And it is also the beginning of the Parris Pike corridor. Our zoning ordinances say that we should adhere not only to the comprehensive plan, but other special plans. Please note, the Paris Pike Corridor small area plan was required because of a civil action, a court order suit that said you need to have the interlocal agreement and this plan. And this does not meet that plan. In fact, the corridor says, the small area plan says that its purpose is to enhance the existing environmental qualities of the bluegrass and encourage high quality and new development. This is not. In 2017, you mentioned that staff and planning commission found it necessary to put added restrictions on this, on the development plan then. One of those restrictions was increased buffering. I know that the applicant claims that they have so much buffering, but if you look at their development plan, they have a sidewalk along the northeastern border and a road, and these are going to drain into the properties next door because they are downhill from them. Also, the staff found that these restrictions were necessary and appropriate for the subject property so that they would not have a negative impact on adjacent agricultural and residential uses. At this time around, nobody seems to care about the adjacent uses of agricultural and the single family home between this property and that. There's no mention of berms, which is part of our 2045 open space and landscaping. So we feel that you should, that these traffic analysis, again, traffic audit and traffic impact studies should be a condition of this development plan. In fact, I think it's a little bit reprehensible that it was allowed to get this far without a traffic study. This is an area that has, it may not warrant enough trips, but this is an area of high congestion and a four lane highway that you're going to put people on one side of to access the other. So I think that that's very important. So definitely keep the resolve of the state access and connectivity before development. And we believe that a cap on height or story limit is very necessary. We think that three stories is more than enough. City Council tried to put a cap on stories and couldn't come up with the proper language to do it. We believe that increased buffering, natural berms, not sidewalks, not roadways, need to be added to the restrictions or conditions of this development and that a setback be increased along Paris Pike, including the water easement, but a much more sizable setback. Just to finish, the development plan should have, in my opinion, some prohibited uses. It should be restricted to no prohibited non-residential uses, because we know that our ZOTAs are And we know that conditional uses might be B1 and R5. So thank you, Chairperson Forrester. And thank you, everybody else. Okay. Thank you. Next, Amy Clark, or do we want to go with Melanie Ramey? Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road and I don't believe this first slide will be any use to you at all. So we can just go on to the second one. First of all, I would say I feel that you've been overwhelmed with a lot of material which isn't allowed to be passed to you in advance of your hearing. And at times I've noticed the BOA will have someone make a motion to request a few minutes pause so that they may review the material before them. I think it's unfortunate for some presenters that they're presenting while you're going through material. If that's your wish, I'd be delighted. Apparently it's not. I'm not seeing anyone jump up. There's a lot to cover. I won't go through my letter. It is of record, and I will assume that you have been able to read it. You're in a situation where you've been informed, and as far as I know, it's very much so. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet will not review and make their recommendation or, in in fact, their approval of any sort of access or adjustment improvement to the roadway until the final development plan is before them. It makes it hard for you, who are in fact our local officers, to ensure the safety of the development. It's hard for you to be able to say, well, there shall be this or that. You were informed at the time of the review of the preliminary development plan and the zone change that you did have the authority in the final development plan stage to ask ask for appropriate traffic studies and also ask for conditions on the plan or things delineated on the plan, facilities that you found appropriate. No traffic study was asked for. Our traffic engineers can't just do it. They serve your pleasure. So you're in a position where you have a lot of information from neighbors that seems to be wildly at variance with the judgments or observations of the staff, and the neighbors actually do travel these roadways every day. I would suggest that it's important to have a signalized intersection. And I would suggest that you make that a condition of plan certification. And that's all I have time for because the time is restricted and the materials we submit are not possible to put before you. I think that's unfortunate. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Melanie Ramey. Good afternoon, thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Melanie Ramey, I live at 5222 Paris Pike. I've had the pleasure of living on Paris Pike for the last six years, actually eight years, sorry. My husband and I operate two large farms on Paris Pike, both at Elmendorf Farm and Rosemont Farm, which are both historic. I have lived on Elmendorf, which is right on the corner of Paris Pike and Ironworks and experienced the traffic as it is now. And I had a little speech prepared, but after listening to the trips comment about how many less trips we have on Paris Pike, sounded like it was about 10,000 less than those other areas that are highly congested in the area, we want it to stay 10,000 trips less. We don't want 10,000 more trips of traffic down Paris Pike. Paris Pike is a really special place to be. It's a special place to live and operate. It's a very special place environmentally with our resources, with our soils of national importance, and our watershed. We operate our horse farms there, both large and small. I have neighbors that operate on five acres, and then we operate on almost 1,000 acres. It's an important place for our historic significance. And I would ask that this council really think about when you're approving developments going down Paris Pike and in the Paris Pike corridor, and I was of the belief that there was a protection available to the Paris Pike corridor because there was an understanding of the historic significance of this area. And now it seems that we, as landowners, are going to have to actually get involved in action to protect ourselves even further from development, because it sounds like there's all this future planning of marching development toward us and toward Paris, which we are not in favor of as a majority of the landowners on Paris Pike. I would just ask that you think about the traffic that's already happening there. I can tell you, when I have to get to the clinic with my horses, this area is a bottleneck at all times of the day, but for sure in the afternoons and in the mornings. I don't know how you're going to get 200 cars in and out of that location without at least a stoplight. So I'm very concerned about being able to go that way for emergencies and just for in and out of our corridor. We're sort of locked where we can get down Ironworks Pike or we can come this way. I can tell you, Ironworks Pike is already being congested as a two-lane road by people getting around because the surrounding areas are too congested already. So I would really encourage you to do a real traffic study before going forward on this, because I think that's the biggest concern I see on top of the fact that we just don't want to see any more development out our way. We really want to continue to see the landscape of our area remain agricultural and historical. Thank you. Thank you. Stacy Underhill. Okay. Cover all my bases. I have multiple personalities today. If you're going to deny me bipolarism, I'm sorry, I'm Stacy Underhill. I don't think you can do that now. I can't do that. She had to leave and ask me. She had to leave or something. You didn't explain that. And she had to leave and ask me to make sure. I will accept that. You didn't look like a Stacey, though. She is. I am going to agree. I don't look like her, and I am sad to admit that. I'm just saying. If I did, I wouldn't be here. So Stacey is president of Old Paris Place Neighborhood Association, and she wanted to make sure that you were aware of the letter that Mike and Lynn Sloan at 151 Strawberry Fields Road sent in and that you've looked at it and have taken into consideration their concerns. And she also said to let you know that Old Paris Place Neighborhood Association is very concerned about the three stories and cannot understand why there are only 198 parking spaces. That's 1.2 cars. And that if you knock off a story and make this three stories, that there'll be enough parking. But they don't feel that four stories is adequate for this area. She also wants to let you know that Old Paris Place Neighborhood Association did write a letter to Chairperson Bart Horn and BCC staff for them to discuss the development plan of this, to make a decision on it, because the minutes from the October meeting stated that no separate decision was made on the development plan. They were told by staff that that was an inappropriate request. It is my understanding that the small area plan does say that the Paris Pike Corridor Commission hears BOAs, development plans, subdivision plans, and anything on the pike from the inception of the pike, which is this property, all the way to the Paris city limits. I think that it is erroneous that you're being told that the only part of the pike that falls under any jurisdiction is just the overlay. No, the overlay has special protections more so than the rest of the pike, but I believe it is clear in the interlocal agreement. But again, Ms. Underhill wants you to know that they feel that there needs to be a lowering in height and increasing buffering along the railroad tracks to protect their neighborhood from this towering development or restriction cap on height. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Debbie. Is there Debbie Ammonhoff? Okay, you sure? Yes. Okay, all right. Okay, did I miss anyone? Council member Brown. He wasn't on the list. I wasn't. No. No, she told me I'm working. Thank you, Commission members. Council Member James Brown, I used to represent this area. Also used to live in this area. And the council did hear this zone change just recently. And one of the toughest things I had with the zone change was hearing the neighbors concern about traffic. I think there is some traffic issues in that area that need to be resolved. I think it's unfortunate that a lot of times the situation has to manifest and the numbers have to be calculated before remedies and improvements are put into place. But I think that's just the nature of the beast sometimes. But I did ultimately vote in support of this development or this land use change. I support the increased housing in Lexington and in this area. But I would like to put my voice with the neighbors and share my concerns about the traffic as well. And then I would also like the commission to consider, and I don't know all the processes or authority you have in regards to development plans, But if there's an opportunity to put a note to resolve the issue of providing safe crossing and access across North Broadway to get to the public transit location across the street, I would ask that you do that. I think the best location is at the old Paris crossing location where the light exists. I think it won't address a lot of the other issues, but I think it will address pedestrian safety issues, especially if there's going to be sidewalks on the frontage of this development. And, you know, I appreciate Commissioner Owens' thought in thinking around the location where the curb is. Any additional access that we can provide to that site I think will alleviate congestion and other congestion at the only one access that is on the plan. So any other traffic conditions you can put on it that would make it safer for the neighbors and for the potential residents at this development, I would encourage you to do that. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Any citizens? Okay, seeing none, we bring it back to the applicant, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. There are a couple of issues I just wanted to address. And we've had about four or so hearings on this, so we understand the issues as well. We were below the level which requires a traffic study to do this on that. not required to do one. Mr. McIntosh updated the study that was done in 2017 though and indicated that we have sufficient site distance at the access point we have on Old Paris Pike. There's been discussion about the having of the end Mr. Owens has raised having a right in on old Paris Road. We are agreeable to studying the viability of that and would have it if it is. If your traffic engineering division deems that it is viable we're we're agreeable to putting that in. As Councilmember Brown had mentioned, we have discussed with Mr. Filiotru as well, Mr. Filiotru has brought up the fact of that slip lane at old paris road and paris pike causes cars to go too fast on there and i think mr philliatrue he's here i think you can you can speak for himself if he if he wants to but the uh it would be safer and make possibly this is the place for the pedestrian crossing as council member brown mentioned if we can do something to eliminate that slip plane which my clients have agreed to do to put additional construction curbing or or whatever out there to to eliminate that so we're set we're in agreement with a note that we require traffic engineering to sign off because I know they are going to be looking at the intersection of Old Paris Road and Paris Pike on this, and we have told them we're agreeable to their sign off on this particular matter. The, wanted to talk about a couple other items that were brought up sort of random. The discussion of number of parking spaces came up at the council. We pointed out that we have done a parking mitigation study as is required by the ordinance and the staff and used the methodology required by the ordinance and came up with the number of parking spaces we are showing because we don't want to over park. Question came up, people were concerned that our residents would park on the other side of the railroad tracks in that subdivision and then have to walk under the railroad underpass to get here. That's not going to occur. The reason is this. When people rent a space at this location, they're going to be told you have one parking space. If you want a second parking space, you can pay extra for that if it's available. If it's not available, the prospective resident is going to be told, we don't have one of available. So you get one space and if you need more, rent someplace else where you have two spaces if they're not available on it. The Lex Tran does stop across the street and as I mentioned the discussion about making the intersection of Old Paris Road and Paris Pike Safer I think will help on that. The again there was discussion raised about height of buildings that was discussed at the council. There was no limitation put on the height. We do have four stories. That's because we have parking underneath. The parking underneath the buildings, you noticed I didn't emphasize the point that we do not have parking between Paris Pike and our buildings. will take the vista to me much more aesthetically pleasing not to have that parking but we're doing it because it's under the building and some of our parking is in the back along the railroad track which isn't going to be visible to anybody except a few of our residents back there as far as the paris by quarter commission goes this the zone change was reviewed by them i think the development plan was presented to them as an informational item even though it was outside their jurisdiction. We are outside the overlay area of the Paris Pike corridor. As far as screening goes, we showed you what we're doing on our screening. As you saw from the exhibits, there is dense screening both on the properties to the north of us and along the railroad tracks as well. We're not counting that that is part of our screening. Our screening is gonna be in addition to the screening that is already there. So we're agreeable with the notes that the staff has proposed, one of those being sign off by the Division of Traffic Engineering on this property. We're agreeable to considering, and this has to be, we cannot say yes, we'll put a write-in on Old Paris Road, we think that's a good idea, which is worth studying, and we will do it if it is deemed advisable by your Division of Traffic Engineering, and if the state has to get involved, I don't know if it's inside the state jurisdiction or not, but if it's required by them to get approved, it will. And as I've said all along, we will do whatever the state tells us to do at that intersection. And as I've said before, we're never gonna have a light until this property develops, because we won't have the warrants for the light until the development is there. The state will not approve a light until there are warrants there. They have done it once before, as I understand, approved a traffic signal before the development was built. That is the new Publix up on Georgetown Road at Citation. They did that because they knew that the entire development was coming on at one time and that that light would be needed right away. They said that is an exception. We've asked them about this property and they said no, we're going to go the normal way on this property. We're going to go on to the way we do everybody else on this because we have inquired as to whether they would approve a light in advance. The answer is no on that. But we will submit our encroachment application and we will do whatever the state tells us to do. We'll contribute money. We understand Peterbilt, that Peterbilt truck facility on the other side of the road. told that they contributed money sometime to a light fund on this property as well. We will contribute to that as well if that is needed. Overall many of the items you've heard today have been zone change items, which were determined as part of the zone change procedure, whether this development would be allowed here or not. height, the buffering and that sort of thing we're showing on our development plan. So we're very pleased to present this to you. We understand the concerns here. I hope you understand our efforts we have made. We have complied with all requirements. We have done everything that has been asked of us on this and we know we still have a road to go. We still have a road to go with the State Highway Department on this. So thank you for your consideration. And as again, I said, we agreed with all the staff conditions shown. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. For the rebuttal piece, Patty, Catherine, Amy, Melanie, do you have anything else you'd like to add? Okay. I think I hit everybody. I am Catherine Perkins. Don't start my time yet. And I just want to add that at subcommittee when this development plan was requested postponement by the applicant, it was at a time when a few of you were deliberating about the buffering. And I do know for a fact that, well, I don't know anything for a fact. I'm sorry. I take that statement back. It is my gut that Mr. Murphy does not want restrictive buffering on this development plan as part of the development, because it takes away from his density, possibly. I don't know his profitability. But that was a concern of our planning commissioners at subcommittee, and they were getting ready to discuss increased buffering on the north and northeastern boundary. And I just want to make that known that I've not heard Judy talk about it. I know you were there. You mentioned it at this last meeting when this was approved to go forward to city council. But that is an issue that you were considering, and I hope you can continue to consider increasing the buffering to protect the adjacent properties from this development. and also taking, again, consideration that the height of this development is not in character with the corridor, anything in the neighborhood, surrounding neighborhoods, or anything within a couple of miles, if not more, from that. Thank you very much. Hello, my name is Patty Drouse, and my only other comment is that putting a pedestrian pedestrian crossing where, if you just look at your maps on there of where the car crashes occur, the clusters occur at the intersection of Old Paris Road and North Broadway and then at the interstate off-ramp. So if you put a pedestrian crossing where that traffic signal is right now, I think that is probably the most dangerous place to put a pedestrian crossing. And where the safest place would be is if a traffic signal goes in at Rogers Road. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Clark. Thank you. And I thank Mr. Davis for his concern as a former Paris Pike Commission member regarding the authority of the Planning Commission and the Paris Pike Commission. I am reading from the interlocal cooperation agreement that was signed by our urban county government. It was voted by council. and Paris and Bourbon, and it's approved by, I believe, the Attorney General as an official cooperation agreement. It says, the commission, the Paris Pike Corridor Commission, shall review all land use applications or proposals along the Paris Pike Corridor which are submitted to the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment in the county in which the property lies. It goes on and on, but I don't think it could be clearer. Okay, I'll go further. I will. The Commission shall promptly review the proposal and make a recommendation to the appropriate body prior to its deliberation on the proposal as to whether it is in conformity with the small area plan and whether it is in conformity with the existing uses and character of the Parris Pike corridor. The Commission's jurisdiction shall include the review of all zone change applications, text amendments, land subdivisions, variances, conditional uses, or administrative appeals which would affect specific properties or land use generally in the Parris Pike corridor. It's true that it does not specifically mention development plans, it does however mention subdivision plans, and the initial language is the Commission shall review all land use applications or proposals along the Parris Pike corridor which are submitted to the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment in the county in which the property lies. I leave that for you to decide, but I do agree with Mr. Davis, who also remembered that they did review prior plans for this property. In addition, I want to turn briefly to this, and the point of it is simply that underground is packed so tight, the trees in a five-foot easement along the rear will not be viable. It needs the 15-foot easement that is within your authority, the maximum of the required easement with a railroad. And I object very much to the dog walk in the buffer. If it's a buffer with the property to the north, it It should not also be a usable open space. It's intended for a buffer. I also think that two paved points of access, stub streets if you will, driveway stubs, into the adjacent properties which are used according to their zone or in fact rural in the rear is one too many. There isn't but a thousand feet, that's a block length. And it shouldn't be paved until the time, just put a note on the plan that it shall be paved when the developing property. Next door. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? We good. Okay. Staff? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, very briefly, staff would just like to make something very clear to you, because you've heard some comments made about compliance with plans, compliance with ordinances. We're not going to bring to you a plan and present it to you with a recommendation approval But if your staff does not believe, it complies with all the necessary requirements of your ordinances and your plans. And in addition, your staff always follows our legal advice on how things are handled, who presents, who reviews. So again, just to get that in the record so you know that's how we operate. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we got a lot of information here. And Ms. Clark did make a comment about some of the vast amount of information that we had. So I would like to take a five minute recess and then come back to the table, if that's okay with everybody. So we'll take a five minute recess, should be back here by 3.31. Thank you. So we last heard clarification from staff. Are there any Commissioner questions for staff? Yes, sir, Mr. Nickel. I do have a question for staff, please. Is this a final or a preliminary plan that we are looking at? We need to confirm that. This is a final development plan, yes. Okay, thank you very much. All righty, if there are no other. Yes, ma'am. I have one. This is a clarification of what would be gained or not gained. Ms. Clark mentioned something about adding on the plan. A note about signalized intersection at the time of certification. Would you address that recommendation and what that would benefit if anything? That would mean that this plan could never be certified until the state of Kentucky had the warrants, the Department of Transportation had the warrants to justify putting in a signal. That could be years. I mean, we don't know. So this is like chicken and egg kind of situation. Yes, in fact, the more traffic you had, the more likely you'll meet those warrants sooner rather than, yeah. Yes, ma'am. Regarding the light, the potential light at Rogers Road and and the fact that we've heard that the Peter Belt across the road from, you know, across Paris Pike and this applicant are willing to put money in the pot to have a light there. Does that help expedite the installation of the light? the light and the fact that if other commissioners on this would add their support to help expedite that? In my experience, no, just because it's not necessarily a support related decision. It's, especially with the state, they're almost exclusively numbers based. Does it meet the warrants or not? At least the day to day staff. there's decisions that are made that a traffic signal goes in and it's not warranted usually the staff for them it's not in favor of that but that's sometimes decisions that they're not you know that are over their head but in this instance if it's district 7 they're gonna want to see the the warrants met and the 8-hour warrant met before they would approve it and at least operationally the reason why is if you think about it as a statewide entity even if there's a lot of support for a traffic signal if you if you did that if that was your reasoning across 120 counties you you would have you know double two, three times as many traffic signals and that's more maintenance. So they wanted to have a very process based decision making. What about the children who are going to potentially live in this development? And how are they going to get to their bus stop? That would be a question for Fayette County Public Schools. I'm not entirely sure about that. Yeah, that's not something. So I do have a further clarification on Commissioner Meyer's question. I suppose Fayette County Public Schools would have to, I mean, they would have to accommodate this side of the road. They couldn't say children would have to cross a road, certainly if there's no pedestrian. I think, yeah, I think within a mile you have to provide your own transportation. Now that may be, so I don't think as far as bus goes, if you're going to Mary Todd, which is across the street, they would be within a mile, and I don't believe the bus would. Is that correct? Yeah. That's my understanding. Anyway, I kind of forgot about that, so when Janice asked. What's that? Okay, yeah. For middle school and high schoolers, if they're not within a mile, then they would make accommodations to pick them up as far as elementary. Thank you. Not yet. Mr. Nickel. I've got a question. So what we're looking at is this site has been approved from a zoning standpoint as an R4 property. No matter what development goes in on this R4 property, the recommendation has been made that the access would line up to Rogers Road by you all, is that correct? Yes, typically. We try to, we try to, not prohibit, but we want access to be across one another rather than staggered just because trying to pull out, making lefts and right turns when you're staggered offsets is typically more difficult to navigate for drivers. I think that's appropriate. So with this R4 property, no matter what plan we're looking at, it's going to have access to Riders Road from a safety perspective. this is the best place to put it because I know the applicant and you all have worked hard to determine where to put it. And this is what we're looking at, Rogers Road. This will be our recommendation, yes. Okay, thank you. Mr. Mickler. You know, when we're looking at the map here, most of the services, Whether it's the school, the bank, the convenience store, the all night waffle house, the bus stop, it's all on the other side of the road. And Council Member Brown came up and spoke about pedestrian crossing and there's currently not a single crossing in this area at all. And so just for those, you know, as part of all our new developments, we're trying to incentivize more trips to be walking trips. Not to mention that there would be people here who wouldn't be of driving age, but can you speak to that pedestrian crossing comment? Yes, yes. So I've been kind of clear with the applicants since the beginning that I would expect that improvements at the minimum, their corner of that intersection to provide pedestrian cross improvements that would provide a safe way for pedestrians to cross. One of the main reasons is their parking mitigation study shows, oh, the parking will be mitigated by the access to the transit stop, which is across the street. If that's going to be where you're going to mitigate parking, you have to give someone the safe way to get there. there so that was i think i've talked to them at the beginning in fairness to them it i don't putting something very specific similar to the traffic signal on a development plan and then it ends up the state into disagreeing with me well they're ultimately going to make have the final say so we try to be more general so with fred who's the uh engineer yesterday we i indicated that would be in support of a note that basically uh indicates that all the the access and the pedestrian crossing will be resolved with transportation cabinet you know prior to of certification. I think they have that understanding as well. Does our proposed staff report have that note that includes the pedestrian crossing? Sent that to me yesterday, so probably not yesterday afternoon. Sorry, I probably should have mentioned it. Because I don't think I see that on there. We discussed it yesterday afternoon, so I doubt it. So it might be, yeah, for assurance purposes it might be prudent to put that on there. Okay. Oh, okay. Okay. While you're doing that note, would this be appropriate to add the write-in subject to approval on that note as well? Again, I discussed it. I did more sitting back the more I think about it. There is that railroad crossing bridge that slightly obstructs your sight distance. I do think obviously it would help people getting in and out. I do worry with how close it is to Paris Pike that there could be increased rearing collisions at that location. I mean, sort of a darn if you do, darn if you don't, though. I mean, there's positives and negatives to both. My inclination at the point would be to not allow that. But again, if we discuss with the state and if there's someone that has a reasoning that makes more sense to me, then I would be ultimately okay. But at this point in time, I think it actually would be best to keep it as an emergency access. They're looking at me since that was my thought. I would surely love to see it left open as to a possibility anyway. That's fine. If it can't happen, it can't happen. But to me, I think it makes sense. I'd love some sort of language associated with that, just leaving it open-ended. That's fine. I don't want to change the direction of the conversation. If you all have other comments about the intersection. Anybody? This is really not a question to staff. I've got some more questions to other commission members. Is it appropriate to ask that at this time? Sure. Okay. A couple of things. One is this is a much better plan than the one we saw the first time out. We had a lot of conversations about trying to make it consistent with the other parts of Paris Pike. And although it's not possible to do that because of the Kentucky American easement, it's still much better looking than it was. In terms of, I guess my question is I was reminded about the north boundary and the buffering there. We've got more intense tree stands, I believe, in an agreement to do a solid six-foot fence. Am I remembering that correctly? I don't know very much about horses other than I fell off the last one I got on and have not had the courage to do that again. but a number of you on this commission are in a much better position than i am to address the question of do we have adequate buffering here we do have more trees we do have the six foot plank fence we don't have berms do we have given that there are active equine operation on the other side of the fence do we have adequate buffering here Thank you again. What I'm looking at says six foot solid fence. For the clarification on that, is it a solid fence or is it board fence? Solid. Is it a solid fence or is it a board, four board fence? Could be, I understand. Sorry. It's a solid fence. The six-foot solid fence with trees and landscaping on that side, I think would be adequate, yes. More so than what we've got on horse farms. Yes, sir. In reviewing some of the comments, there was one that I don't think was discussed from the public, which was involved lighting. And we've seen on a lot of the development plans on the staff reports a recommendation for, I think like 12 foot maximum height lights pointed down. Is that, we're not seeing that now because it's now in the standard, got it. Thank you for clarifying that. Are there any other commissioner comments or questions? Mr. Polk. One question. The tree buffer between the property and the properties on the other side of the railroad, as I look at Google Maps, there's a pretty good bank of trees along the railroad, but I'm assuming that's on railroad property and there's no controlling what they do with those trees. Is that correct? So the land, one of the adjacent properties on the other side of the tracks was concerned about lighting, which I think that last question resolved not having light penetrating into their property. But they're also concerned about the tree buffer being adequate. Is staff familiar enough with the property to understand the implications of the development for those properties on the other side of the track? I guess visually is probably the issue, right? Whether they're- I think staff does believe it's adequate and the urban forester has visited the property and believes that it's adequate as well. Thank you. Any other comments, questions, perspectives? I'm just curious what you think. Yes, sir. I've never been called upon in such a situation. I'm looking at this from about three different angles. number one i'm looking at from the standpoint of people who live in that community because i don't and if i had to travel those highways and byways each and every day safety would be a major concern to me s one to look at from that perspective they seem to be cooperate cooperative and cooperating in every way possible to make it as safe as possible so i take that in consideration and then the other part of it is lexman needs housing And that's a critical issue that we have. So I think that there should be some type of accommodation made in terms of the safety issues, because I think the community has a really legitimate point on that. And I am all for that end of it. But at the same time, I am also for the housing activities, and I think this is a nice project going forward. So that's my thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Personally, I'm going to agree with Mr. Wilson. I've got some concerns, but that ship's already sailed. I would agree that I think personally four stories a little bit tall, but that's already gone past the council and that's what we've got to deal with. Safety is a major issue I think I've emphasized enough as to, and everybody else as to the pedestrian crossing. We definitely need to focus on that going across North Broadway. And as far as I'm concerned, anything that we can do to provide some sort of even one way access onto, off a one way access in off of old Frankford Pike, I think would be a huge benefit as well. So, anything else? I suppose, yes, Mr. Nickel. Mr. Owens, do you think that, as we've discussed today, we are interested in traffic to consider one way entrance into the property from Old Paris Pike as you've recommended. Do you think that the condition 16, resolve access to Paris Pike, does that take into the consideration of the intent of our conversation? I think that focused on the main access into the property on Parrish Pike. I would like language to include pedestrian crossing and the possibility of one-way access from Old Parrish Pike. Do you think it would be okay if we added resolve access to Parrish Pike and Old Parrish Pike? Yeah, with pedestrian crossing. I think those things should be emphasized. I agree, and I think we're going to find that hopefully the person, the group that can solve our problems is the state with light. I'm with you. And I think that's what we're all looking at is that there's a hope that the pedestrian access and the vehicular access and multimodal access can be solved by the state. And as we're looking at a already zoned R4 property, the warrants have to be generated in order for the state to act. So we're in a situation where we are beholden to the state to help us solve this problem. I think we've done so on the development plan, and the next action that would need to be taken is by the state itself to help meet our intent. I agree. I'm just saying I'd like to emphasize those. If it can happen, great. If it can't, then, you know, we've done what we can. So just a question. I'm trying to combine what both of you said. Are we talking about potentially, I lost my sheet of paper here, something like for number 16 resolve vehicular, multimodal, and pedestrian access to Paris Pike and old Paris Pike? Is that too much? That would work for me. I think traffic definitely understands where we're coming from. Is that a too much, it's understood that all those would be covered and we don't need all those words? There we go, right there. No, I think that's fine. I think we're all saying, I agree with Mr. Owens and that looks appropriate to me. Well, I'm willing to make a motion. I might add, if we, again, legal can tell me for sure, but can we add, just as we have stubs for future possible connections, can we write that in a way that a pedestrian crossing and hopefully signal at Rogers Road will appear one day? Can we go ahead and kind of tee it up? But because for me, a pedestrian crossing at Rogers Road, I think would be a little bit safer than a pedestrian crossing over old Paris. So are you wanting to add a condition that, I want to make sure that I understand your question, that says resolve access across Rogers Road? Rogers Road, is that what you're wanting to say? With the intention of an eventual pedestrian crossing at Rogers Road. I think the state won't put a pedestrian crossing across a state highway without a light. Right. So if there's a light installed at some future point, then they would include a pedestrian crossing. Is that standard now? Yes. It's part of their standards. Sure. They would have the pedestrian crossing. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure because there are intersections with lights that don't have pedestrian crossings. And if we're putting this many people here, crossing that on foot is precarious at best. And I just think if we can, again, show the intention that that will happen. So do we want a note that says if a light is installed at Rogers Road and this entrance at Paris, that there would be a request to have pedestrian crossing across Paris? Just something to show that that was our intent. Yeah, that's certainly fine. I mean, some of the lights you're talking about where there are no crossings, the state is, I don't think they would do that anymore. I mean, especially given that the use is on each side, they would, they would, both would be included, I think. So, but you're essentially saying voice, is there a way to voice support for pedestrian facilities? Should a signal be warranted? Just have it in writing. It's on the plan. That was the intention. I think that's very important. Does that address your question then? I'm sorry? Does that address your question that you have for legal? Okay. Thank you so much. Anything else? Mr. Pohl? No, we're doing that. Okay. On a much lighter note, I just want to point out that the condition 14, which is, sorry, condition 15, which says provide exhibit illustrating compliance with multifamily design guidelines. I want to point out that one of those guidelines is to encourage as much variety as possible in development, and I would really like to see these buildings not look identical to one another but have some variation. For example, on the, I guess there are stair towers that seem to define the facades. a different roof form on each one of those could make a huge difference to the appeal of the development and also could help residents to understand that their particular building is a little different from the next guy's particular building. Just a suggestion, but I think that that particular guideline is really worth paying attention to, and I think that in the past, I've been seeing that it's kind of ignored a lot and I'd personally like to see that taken more seriously. That's all. Anything else? Commissioner Nickel, did you say you intended to make a motion? I'll take a stab at this if we're ready. If not, I can wait. Okay. If staff is ready. All right, thank you, Ms. William. I'm going to make a motion for approval of PLNMJDP 24-00002 Jones Cottrell property at Joyland Crossing LLC. With the now 17 conditions, condition 16 being changed to resolve access to Paris Pike and Old Paris Road and pedestrian crossing at the intersection. In 17, denote if a traffic signal is installed at Rogers Road slash Paris Pike, the pedestrian crossing should be strongly encouraged across Paris Pike. Second. We have a motion and a second. Now, Mr. Owens, does that satisfy your ask about the end off Old Paris? Okay, all right. Is there any discussion to that motion? If not, you seconded. Commissioner Davis? If not, we will put that to a vote. Thank you, thank you Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Am I correct that we're now on page seven, the Ramsey Sullivan property, phase three, lot three? And thank you to the neighbors who came and shared your comments. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are moving to the top of page seven. This is a major development plan, 24-4, Ramsey Sullen Property, Phase 3, Lot 3. Oh boy, I've got two of these up here now. This is going to be good. But we're located out on Spur Road. Here we have Spur Road. This is Georgetown Road out here. Innovation Drive coming into Spur Road at this location. Now, you all may recall this was a zone change several years ago to create an I-1 area and a B-3 area in this location along Spur Road. What you see before you on the screen is an entirety of a preliminary subdivision plan with a final development plan for this area. This is a collector street from the subdivision that comes out to here. You may recall that when this was rezoned, there was a tremendous amount of discussion about Spur Road and the appropriate infrastructure, as well as this connection and the timing of its completion and the timing of the improvements on the S-curve here along Spur Road that helped accommodate the zone change to I-1. So with that, the applicant has come in with a modified plan to show a final development plan, and they're required a final development plan on every one of these lots. That was one of the conditions that the Planning Commission placed on the zone change, that they bring in a final development plan. And what you see here is a final development plan on a lot and then part of lot four. So it just leaves a little remnant here of lot four. I say a little remnant, but it leaves a remnant. And hence the fact that you have a final development plan and an amended preliminary subdivision plan, because in essence they're changing the lotting pattern. There will be a minor plat that will have to be filed before this plan can be certified to combine the properties. Now, let's focus in here on the final development plan. Again, you have Innovation Drive coming in. They're proposing an access into the property. This is a sales and office area. It's about 4,000 plus square feet of a building with a garage area. There's a storage building of over 8,000 square feet in the rear. This is a ramp. This was interesting. We had to have that explained. This is how they offload the heavy equipment. This is a deer facility. They're going to sell and maintain the product that they sell. When this plan initially came in, there was a lot of concern about what you see in this area and this heavy gravel indication here and with access through here, with appropriate vehicular access, paving that's required under Article 16 for your VU areas, along with display areas. One aspect of this property when it was rezoned is that there was a considerable amount of conditional zoning restrictions placed on the properties. And in this particular case in the I-1, B-3 had some as well. But I-1 had a prohibition against outdoor storage. Oh, that created an issue of definition and what does that cover and storage and outdoor storage is very clearly defined in the ordinance. Now, it was determined that you can't store equipment that you're working on. You can't store barrels with, you know, fluids in it, tools, parts. Those things are broken down pieces. That's outdoor storage associated with the business. It's not allowed. It was determined that you can display, just like a car dealership, you can display what you have for sale. Whether it's a dozer, a backhoe, a tractor, that sort of thing that John Deere now manufactures and sells. So it was determined that they could have a display area, and that area could be gravel. These areas are also areas where they can display their inventory. because much of the building and sales office area, I think I said 4,000, I was saying it's 26,000. It's a large facility. They have a large garage area where they are going to be doing the maintenance and a lot of the work. We had a lot of meetings with the applicant, a lot of phone calls. We've got several revised plans, and we've come to the position with what you see before you today. They have done a good job of addressing a lot of staff's concerns about providing vehicular use areas that are appropriately paved throughout the site where necessary. Again, as stated, they're also maintaining these gravel areas. And what they've discovered, the applicants discovered that a lot of these heavy equipment, they have heavy tires, they have tracks on them. They tear pavement up. They tear blacktop up. They tear concrete. And so they have developed through practice a heavy gravel. We think of gravel. Most of us think of gravel, little gravel, pea gravel. But they use a heavy, heavy stone and mix it and they compress it. And then over time, there's damage to it. There's ruts in it, that sort of thing. They can go in yearly and they can flatten it all back out. So for them, it's a maintenance issue. And staff agreed that you could use that as a display area. That would be appropriate. But again, we had some concerns, and we'd like to continue to work with them. And you see there's a resolve. Item 17 is resolve vehicular use area and pavement because, again, with a garage and moving vehicles in and out and pickup trucks and cars and deliveries, whatever may happen, again, we're concerned about vehicular movement, not just the equipment movement on the site. and the need to comply with the appropriate Article 16 requirements for that. And with that, we have another item, and that is resolve the location of the internal access easement. I mentioned this lot that's a remnant because it occupies these lots. We're a different size. As I said, they're taking up a lot of Lot 3. they wanted it. Access to this lot's important. It's going to have to be internal. And the appropriate location for that needs to be resolved. They have options. They had initially wanted it right down through here. Staff said, no, that's too close to Spur Road. It won't function. It's dangerous, et cetera. We have issues with it. You're going to have to find a better location for that cross access. So that is something that's going to have to be resolved the appropriate location of that access easement. And frankly, they can tell you and staff's aware that this lotting pattern and those sorts of things in these areas may certainly well change depending on the ultimate user. Because what you've got before you today is this site right here. They have a user and they're wanting to accommodate that development of the site. So those two issues still remain to be resolved. There's been some discussion, and I think the concern is lessened somewhat, but they're showing a one-way access right here and out. That's not necessarily a bad thing. This is full access right through here. And we're just having some discussion about whether or not that's an effective internal circulation. Again, something that we believe can be resolved pretty easily with the applicant. The Rural Springs Committee did meet yesterday and review various plans, including this one. They expressed a couple of concerns and had a couple of recommendations. One is that, is there any fuel on the site? Yes. It's a small tank. They have to have fuel to fire up their equipment to demonstrate that it works and functions. Just like, you know, they don't have a gas pump. They just have an above-ground tank so they can put fuel as needed, small amounts of fuel in the equipment. Well, again, to protect against spills, and this has been recommended before by the committee, that tank will be interior to the garage area. It will have a concrete curb around it, and its volume will be greater than the volume of the tank. So should the tank leak and all the fuel come out, it will be contained within that area. And that is something that they have recommended and has been installed in another site as well. They also, they're very concerned about gravel. And again, fuel leaks into gravel. They recommended, and these are recommendations that go to our engineering department division, to put a liner under the gravel. That's been used before, it's been recommended again on other sites, and again that's to stop any fuel leaks and that sort of thing from further percolating down and into the aquifer. So those are the recommendations from the Royal Springs Committee. They will be placed on the plan when it's brought in for circulation, and with that, staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions? If not, thank you. Mr. McClure. On the development plan that was uploaded, it says not to permit underground storage tanks unless it's approved by LFUCG. Would we want to change that to what the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee? No, that's a conditional zoning restriction. We can't change those. The Royal Springs Aquifer recommendation will be placed on the plan. It'll be placed on the development plan. On the development plan, yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Gross. Good afternoon, Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicant. And to explain a little bit on the John Deere dealership. First, I'd like to thank Mr. Martin for catching Chairman Forrester trying to put me ahead of the last case. I've enjoyed the last two hours of my life. So thank you very much for that. But yes, so we have been working with staff. For those at the subdivision committee, we were made aware of the vehicle use area. not in time to submit this plan to be reviewed by the subdivision subcommittee, which is why we're here today. We thought we had provided the UVA that was requested. We had a great conversation with Ms. Wade and Mr. Martin before this meeting. We understand their concerns. We think this will be easily resolved, so we're comfortable with everything they have put down as matters to be resolved with them after today's approval and i'm not here to ask answer any questions but i think this would be a good project and for those who are curious imagine a car dealership but this will be selling john deere equipment instead of that so all righty any comments or questions a question i have just for the commission is and staff are we all satisfied that the adjoining residential areas are properly protected pardon me i'm sorry i didn't catch all that i know on the plan we have a 30-foot landscape buffer but staff is is good and the commission's good with the protections we've put in for the adjoining residential. Yes, sir, you may recall that was part of the zone change. Okay. And it was very much put in. That 30-foot buffer is fairly extensive after conversations with the neighborhood. That's right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. It was a three-way negotiation with the staff and the neighbors. I see. Okay. Thank you, Brandon. Anything else? Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any commissioner discussion or a motion? Mr. Wilson. I was going to make a motion. Sure. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 24-4 Ramsey Sullivan Property Phase 1 with the 17 conditions provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson and Ms. Worth. Is there any discussion? If not, we will take it to a vote. Thank you very much. So that takes us to Coldstream, is that correct? Yes. All righty. Make sure I get the right one. Whoops. Wait for that. There we go. Okay. Wrong one. Let's see if I get the right one. There we go. We had two different remotes up here. Sorry about that. Okay, so this is Coldstream, this is out at Coldstream Research Park. This is McGrathiana right here. We're developing a piece of property here. Newtown Pike is way out this way. We have a connecting road in through here to bring us into McGrathiana. They came in for a development plan to have a building and parking, associated parking with it. But as you can see, they also have an access point coming from this lot onto the other lot. The two buildings are working together. So we asked for both pieces of property to be joined together so that we can see how they were connected. With this development, they brought us in a revised plan. So we have a pink sheet with revised conditions on it. So we were able to clean it up. We just want to have the typical first 12 conditions or the typical sign off. Then we have addition of all the final development plan information down at the bottom. at the very bottom of the page, they kind of cut off the other information, but now that we're tying these two lots together, we need to have all of the information. And then denote review and recommendation of the Royal Springs Aquifer. This plan was in front of the Royal Springs Aquifer, and if there was any notes of anything that needed to be done to this property, it should be added to the plan. I wasn't at that meeting, so I don't think there was anything noted or anything. thing. This is a pharmaceutical company and as I said, there was an existing building on the adjacent property and now they're tying this one into this property. So with that I'll open it to you all if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you. Any comment or question from commissioners? If not, thank you very much. Applicant. Good afternoon. My My name is Charlie Hall with Thoroughbred Engineering. We're in agreement with the staff recommendations. This was reviewed yesterday by the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee and was approved. We will have to add a sign on the property just saying that it's within the aquifer, and we'll add a note to the plan that we'll do that. If there's anything else, I can answer any questions. Mr. Mickler? Yeah, judging by the parking lot in the new building, it's going to be quite an expansion for the applicant in terms of space and staff as well. Well, I guess it's my understanding they also manufacture here. I'm just looking in terms of the connections and open space between that. is that there's one small sort of patio on the side of there, but there's quite a bit of green space adjacent to that patio. Was there any discussion in sort of what kind of space they were hoping to create there? For the patio? The usable open space, a lot of it was waived due to its distance to the Coldstream Park. It's within the radius so that the common space is waived. It's been reviewed by Boyd, so the open space for usable and vegetated, he said, was good to go. I think it's more just for people to come out for lunch. Mm-hmm. The patio. I'm sorry. I think it was more just for a patio for people to come out at lunchtime, possibly. They do meet the open space. There is a park within a certain distance. Okay, thank you. Anything else? Seeing none, thank you very much. do we have any final discussion or motion mr chair yes sir uh if you're ready uh one comment we do appreciate the uh work and effort that was done to take this from 20 29 down to 14 we do appreciate it and i kind of feel like if it had been turned in a day earlier, they may not have had to spend three hours here today. But with that said, Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 23-13 Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 3, Lot 27, with the revised 14 conditions. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens and Mr. Wilson. Yes. Seconded. Any discussion? If not, we will vote. Thank you very much. I believe our next item is the First United Methodist Church. Does it go? There we go. Okay. Okay, this is the First United Methodist Church. We're located up here off of High Street, and I believe this is – anyway, I get them mixed up. This is – one's upper and – anyway, Mill. So we're up on High Street. We had a large church. They're proposing to have an addition located in this area. They're also working with water quality with the stormwater grant to do some improvements in their parking lot. As again, they came in with revisions. As you can see, we got a yellow sheet this time with revisions. We have the first 11 conditions are our typical sign-offs. We had to mention new buildings and access points to know building height in the site statistics, label species of trees. They've told us the size of some of the trees located on the property. Looks like we have some rather large trees. We just want to know what kind of trees they are. Addition of zone line information. This property is also in the historic overlay. So we have some R2, and then we had some R4 down here in the bottom, and some more R2. This is all B2 up in this area. So we just always want our zoning information, because we had one condition for zone-to-zone screening along the bottom portion of the property here against the residential zone. We need to correct the purpose of amendment to include the additional building square footage and then discuss compliance with Article 16 for the parking requirements. The new parking requirements require an 8-foot vehicle use screening along the edge of the property. You can't really see this very well, but you can see there's some parking spaces, and they have it right up against the wall. they have drive aisles and then additional parking I spoke with them briefly before the meeting about possibly being able to shift some of these parking areas down just a little bit because they've got wider drive aisles 24 foot is what you're required and they've got a slightly larger so they might be able to get the vehicle use screening along the top portion of here which includes trees and other landscaping So that's what we had discussed. So speaking with them, they said that they can work with us on this to get it resolved. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you. Anyone have anything? Thank you very much. Good afternoon. my name is Daniel Rayner representing the client with thoroughbred engineering and generally I just wanted to touch base on the history of this project just a little bit church kind of came to us after they got the stormwater grant just to try and help them through that process and so and since then they've they've added on to that project with one to kind of change the entrance to their church there um is it pc one or two yeah so the main thing we've been trying to do while bringing it up to current code is we're not really we weren't trying to change what they have except for where we've had to make some improvements so they didn't have uh dry vials that met the standard down here and so we've updated that and then their their new entrance is going to be on this side and that's where this new entrance off the road is coming from and so the reason why the parking is right where it is up there was because we were maintaining that i do think as cheryl mentioned there is i think 29 feet and 28 feet in between these two existing aisles so we probably can shift those but we are trying to get away with changing too much and causing too much cost from the church but we're willing to work with them on that to try and meet that that ordinance as required and then they went ahead and said well we don't know if we're going to do this but let's add an addition there in case we ever do in the next within the next five years and so that's that's where that stem from but all in all we all are in favor of in or not in favor but we're in agreement with staff recommendations on the project. Thank you. Any comment or question? If not, thank you very much. And the floor is open for a motion or discussion. Yes. Well, just a question in regards to the landscape buffer. Since there's a concrete wall there, we would be buffering the concrete wall from the parking lot? Or is there a, I mean, the concrete wall is the current buffer. That would remain, and then the planting would be on the inside of the concrete wall. Is that what the discussion is? Yes, it ranges from four to about six feet around that side. So we'd be adding, I guess to be in compliance with it, an eight-foot section of grass with some trees in it right behind that retaining wall that drains to the street. All right, thanks. Anything else or do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, we still have number 17. We have to address somehow. Number 17. It says. Is it a discuss item? Okay. It's changing to resolve, I see, sorry, okay. Yeah, yeah, okay. Thank you, Jan. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move for approval of PLN and JDP 2414 First United Methodist Church with the revised 17 conditions, changing number 17 from discussed to resolve. And I'd like to thank the applicant for getting them down like the prior case. Thank you Commissioner Meyer and Barksdale. We have a motion and a second. If there's any discussion in the event there isn't, we will vote. Second. Commissioner Barksdale would second it. All right. Thank you. applicants now i suppose we are to our zoda discussion i'm sorry about my voice today um we do have a request for the planning commission to initiate a text amendment to the zoning ordinance and this is for medicinal cannabis businesses so the state adopted legislation last year in the summer and it was senate bill 47 that was approved it included definitions it broke down cannabis businesses into our medicinal cannabis businesses into five types of businesses it established a framework for state regulation of medicinal cannabis, and then cities were given the ability to further regulate cannabis businesses, both in terms of land use and fees associated with the business operating. And then there is a section in the law that talks about governments, local governments, enacting ordinances that don't conflict with the state law in terms of regulating time, place, and manner. So that's what the city of Lexington will need to do. And then it goes into effect January 1st, 2025. At first blush, the staff thought we could use existing language in the ordinance and interpret retail sale to perhaps mean the same as a dispensary. But the closer we looked at the regulations, we thought it was best to go ahead and incorporate the language on the state law so that it was absolutely clear for everyone how cannabis medical or medicinal cannabis businesses were being regulated in Fayette County. Since we started reviewing the regulations that were adopted by the state, there has been additional legislation proposed in Frankfurt. and in this session one of those changes included modifying the effective date so that meant we as a staff needed to bring this to the planning commission probably a little sooner than we would have normally to ensure that we could have it be in place as soon as possible. So one of the state regulation changes that are kind of proposed at this point is to change the effective date from next January to July of this year. And then there's another additional legislature proposed, the effective date being the day that it gets passed in the legislature. So we are on a bit of an expedited process to ensure that we have some regulations in place prior to the state starting to issue licenses for these five businesses. So I believe Paula forwarded you a draft text yesterday to review. The intent of just giving you that ahead of time was, again, to just kind of start to digest some of the information. before we get to the point of going through the more formal process. So by initiating today, that allows the staff to prepare mailed notice for the text amendment to go out to our registered neighborhood associations and to be able to continue to talk about how we regulate these uses with the Planning Commission. We are hoping to move forward with a, sorry, I did what everybody else does. move forward with an April filing, which would put us on schedule for May hearings. So this doesn't include the definitions, but on page one of the handout that you got, and then carrying over to page two, are definitions of a few terms. First, medicinal cannabis, and that is copied directly from the state law. and it is hoping to clarify that medicinal cannabis is a form of marijuana but not exactly the same and then also defines cannabis business and it goes on the state law does go on to distinguish and break down into five categories the the types of medicinal cannabis businesses and those are I'm going to show up here, the cultivator, and it breaks down into four groups by size, a processor, a producer, safety compliance facility, and then a dispensary. So for clarification, a cultivator is generally the growing of the medicinal cannabis, but they are allowed per the state law to do all of the things in this definition, which are acquire and possess and cultivate, raise, harvest, etc. But also then deliver it to another licensed cannabis business and then sell only seeds and seedlings and raw plant material, not plants themselves. And those four tiers that the state law creates are based on indoor growth area. And so we have the first tier is up to 2,500 square feet of an indoor growth area. tier two is up to 10,000 tier three 25,000 and then tier four 50,000 so i tried to think of a night just an example for you of the size of a building that might be of those sizes um generally 2,500 square feet is like a subway like a small restaurant usually in a strip shop is what we see cultivator 2, 10,000 square feet. What's a good example of that, Tom? 10,000 square feet. I would say that is slightly smaller than like a Walgreens. 25,000 square feet is like a standalone restaurant, maybe. And then 50,000 is obviously less than a Kroger, but it would be larger than the Publix you just approved. So those are general, it could be kind of an anchor for a shopping center. So those are kind of some rough ideas of the square footage we're looking at. I would clarify that the business, a cannabis business, does have to be spaced per the state law from schools and daycare centers. And that's true for all five types. So whether you're cultivating, processing, doing safety compliance or dispensaries, you have to be at least 1,000 feet from a school or a daycare center. And that's all types of daycare centers, even in-home daycare centers. So we're working with the state. They have information about who they've issued, child care licenses to and they're providing that information it's available on their website so that we they'll need it obviously when they issue licenses and so we'll be able to use that information and supplement if we have additional information about like private schools so cultivators again are kind of the growing part of it a processor that kind of is what it sounds like you're taking the raw materials and making it into a more finished product. And then a producer is the combination of the two. Safety compliance has to be separate. Can't have the same entities involved or people involved because they're ensuring that the medicinal cannabis meets the regulations of the state. And then dispensary is going to be obviously distributing it to people who have a card, so a card holder. And that's people who are licensed or given permission by the state to receive the medicinal cannabis. And, of course, the state law has all kinds of regulations about safety, of the structures where these will occur, but also about what medical issues, medical diagnoses trigger the ability to even have medicinal cannabis. And those are all taken care of through the state regulation. What we're worried about here with planning is the land use of it. So when the staff sat down to try to figure out what we would recommend to you, we looked at cultivators as, again, the growing. So recommending that the smaller tier one and tier two, which again is up to 10,000 square feet, would be an accessory use in our ag zones. If it's over 10,000, which would be Tier 3 and 4, then it would become a conditional use in the ag zones. But again, growing, because these are in secure facilities and all indoor, the staff felt that the cultivating could occur in an industrial zone as well. So I1, I2, or economic development zones. but then it would be prohibited in our residential professional office, business, and mixed-use zones. So similarly, producers and processors, we felt those should be treated similarly and would be allowed, again, in a principal use in our industrial zones, but prohibited in the residential business, professional office, and now switching agricultural. So you'd be able to grow but not do any of the processing in an ag zone. And then safety compliance is a bit different. Again, it's more of a laboratory setting based on the description of the state. So allowing that in a professional office setting or business zones or to provide some crossover into the industrial zones. And then that makes it prohibited in our residential mixed-use ag and the basic business zones. Dispensaries are still not retail sale, right? You have to have a prescription for medicinal cannabis, so it would be separate. But a dispensary can sell other products, so related products. So the staff felt that that was similar to other uses within our B1 zone, our downtown zones, again B3, B6P, which is our commercial center zone, the CC in the expansion area, the mixed-use zones, and then our new CN zone, if that gets adopted. but then it would be prohibited in residential, agricultural, the Lexington Center Business Zone, B4 because generally retail and pharmacies aren't going to be allowed in those zones, B5P, same thing, P1s and I1s. So that's kind of a summary of the staff's recommendation in terms of moving forward. and obviously as we go into this process the Planning Commission can make edits to the text and we'll hear you know public comments about that as well so this is our general timeline to move forward we would anticipate April being kind of the application period where we mail out our notice we ensure that all the application materials are available and then we would go to the zoning committee may 2nd for with a staff recommendation and then have an early may hearing may 9th i know that's normally your subdivision item meeting but from a timeline perspective in order to get it back to the council for them to have time to act on it in june we need to have it finished in early may and that gets it back to them June 11th for a work session and potential first and second readings two weeks apart in in June and you're probably aware but they actually get a vacation kind of a vacation in the middle of the summer whereas we don't and this allows that to this these regulations to get to the council before they go on their summer break happy to answer any questions I told Judy in an email she had a question that I'll do my best. I'm not an expert yet. Well, I guess it's a suggestion since I don't have an answer either. Yeah. I know this is not a land use term, but to improve the comprehensibility of the text, I would put a small definition of what a cardholder is. Okay. I will tell you, I was in Denver when they opened the dispensaries, and I'm not sure what the cardholders will be here, but there were lots and lots of what I presume were cardholders lined up outside the stores when they opened the dispensary. So it might be a term we need to understand. Okay. Okay. Picky one. Maybe if that one wasn't picky. On that first page where the initial round of terms are defined, and I suspect you all pulled this directly from the statutory language, where we've got cannabis cultivator means and we've got A, B, and C. That first one lays out four categories of cannabis seed, seedlings, plants, or raw plant material. But the category of plants never appears in those other two. And, you know, as a former English teacher from 100 years ago, when you set up categories, you need to follow your categories. And so the concern I have about it, and this is for you as an attorney, is are we leaving a gap that somebody could use to their advantage if we leave out the term plants when we've used it in Part A? That's a question. We did carry this forward straight from the state law. And I'm not an attorney. I'm a planner. But thank you. Our other Tracy Jones is an attorney. But I think it's important to mimic their language so that we don't unintentionally change the intent of the state legislation. But I do take your point to, for some reason, unbeknownst to us, they felt plants were, you could acquire, possess, plant them, harvest them, but you can't deliver them anywhere. and you can't sell the plant. I'm assuming, but you can sell the other things, right? You can sell seeds or seedlings or sell raw plant material. So I assume there's some reason they don't want you to sell the plant itself. So the exclusion means you can't do it, is what that means? Yes. Okay. Yes. So in digging into those definitions, they don't define plant, but they do define seedling. So a seedling is up to eight inches tall. So after eight inches, I guess you're not able to sell it anymore. You can only create the raw material from that. Mr. Bickler. Just a question about the uses for the cultivators in the ag zones. Greenhouses now are a conditional use, right? Yes. So does that not effectively make tiers one and two conditional uses? I guess if they already had a greenhouse conditional use. And then I guess the second part of the question is, because it's either grown in a greenhouse environment with natural light, where it's grown in a structure that's completely enclosed, like a warehouse with completely artificial light, which is another method. They're controlling the light and temperature. Do we regulate how is, because that's all of a sudden would be a lot larger structures. Or how are those sort of other ag structures regulated? Greenhouses are specifically called out that you have to go get a conditional use permit. How would those other structures be regulated? So I included the definition of commercial greenhouse on page two here because I do think we want to clarify that the medicinal cannabis cultivator is not a commercial greenhouse. And it talks about what commercial greenhouses can do, like sell herbicide and fungicide and have mulch and all these sort of things, which is very different than the way the state is describing the growing of medicinal cannabis. They are saying basically it can't be in a greenhouse. house. It has to be in a secure facility that is enclosed on all sides, on solid walls. So they're making it more of an industrial type structure. But our staff assessment was that cultivation of it, the growing happens, growing of so many things happens in our ag zones already, that if we can limit it to the letting accessory on an accessory level happen up to 10,000 square feet than anything beyond the 10,000 because you may or may not know but 10,000 is a pretty bright line in our ar zone in terms of conditional uses anything that's not ag related has to get a conditional has to get a conditional use and also is limited to 10,000 square feet If it is agricultural related, it does it's not conditional use like the commercial greenhouse, but it's not limited in terms of the size. So our veterinary clinics are considered agricultural and they're not limited to the 10,000, whereas churches are. They're clearly not an ag use. They're meant for some other things. So we kind of have a bright line in the ag zones of that 10,000. So this ensures that at 10,000, 10,001, they need a conditional use. Less than that, they could still be allowed with your agricultural use. Does that sort of make sense? That was our thinking anyway in terms of making a first stab at where these things might fit. Any other questions? hearing tracy you describe that under 10 000 i mean i don't know what i thought it was going to be but knowing that it would be a solid structure basically almost kind of like almost like a warehouse in essence yeah or a barn yeah um i would probably be more comfortable with tiers one and two as a conditional use but that's just my feedback you disagree anybody else have anything if not i suppose you need a motion from us to initiate to initiate and before you do that i will let you know that we we are sending once we initiate we'll send this to the rural land management board and their representative their staff member so that they can review it and provide feedback before we get to the public hearing great all righty yes would anyone mr mickler um i make a motion to initiate the medical cannabis business zoda second motion from mr Mr. Mickler, second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, thank you and thank you all for another long day. Your commitment to the community is commendable. I'll remind you that we have a Planning Commission work session next Thursday, March the 21st. That will be in the third floor Phoenix and we look forward to seeing you all at that time. Thank you. Well, we'll have the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. We want to present that to you all. That will be finalized in the next few weeks. So we want our transportation plan. We also have the planning annual report from 2023 that we'll be presenting and then updates on the growth management as well. All righty, if there's nothing else, Mr. Wilson, are we adjourned? Without objection, we are adjourned.