# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - May 9, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 9, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6108 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6108?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-05-09 - **Last revised**: May 9, 2024 - **Length**: 26,265 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on May 9, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting addressed three main agenda categories: Land Subdivision Items, Zoning Items, and Public Hearings on Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments, all of which were informational in nature. During the session, the commission conducted 18 motions and votes on various planning and zoning matters. The meeting included 6 public comments from community members, providing input on the items under consideration. The agenda covered standard planning commission business related to land development and zoning regulations within the urban county jurisdiction. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on May 9, 2024: • Ivy Barksdale • Janice Meyer • Judy Worth • Robin Michler • Zach Davis • William Wilson • Graham Pohl No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All seven members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 18 motions and votes on various planning and administrative matters. **Administrative Items** The commission unanimously approved performance bonds and letters of credit [timestamp: 00:30], with Judy Worth seconding the motion. Minutes from March 14, March 28, and April 11, 2024 were approved by roll call vote with one abstention [timestamp: 01:30], seconded by William Wilson. **Item Withdrawals and Postponements** Several planning items were postponed or withdrawn. Graham Pohl motioned to withdraw PLN-MJDP-24-24, seconded by Jonathan Davis [timestamp: 03:00]. Janice Meyer motioned for indefinite postponement of PLN-MJDP-24-10, seconded by Judy Worth [timestamp: 04:00]. Four items were postponed to June 13, 2024: PLN-MJDP-23-64 (motioned by Judy Worth, seconded by Graham Pohl) [timestamp: 05:00], PLN-MJDP-24-0030 (motioned by William Wilson) [timestamp: 06:00], PLN-MJDP-23-50 (motioned by Graham Pohl, seconded by Judy Worth) [timestamp: 07:00], and PLN-MJDP-24-28 (motioned by Janice Meyer, seconded by Jonathan Davis) [timestamp: 08:00]. **Consent Agenda and Planning Applications** The consent agenda was approved unanimously excluding items PLN-MJDP-24-21 and PLN-MJDP-24-26, motioned by William Wilson and seconded by Jonathan Davis [timestamp: 09:00]. Several planning applications were approved with conditions: PLN-FRP-24-08 with 11 conditions [timestamp: 10:00], PLN-FRP-24-09 with staff conditions and waiver findings [timestamps: 11:00, 12:00], PLN-MJDP-24-21 with 26 conditions (one abstention) [timestamp: 14:00], and PLN-MJDP-24-26 with 9 conditions [timestamp: 15:00]. **Notable Roll Call Votes** PLN-MJDP-24-11 passed by roll call with Janice Meyer voting against [timestamp: 13:00]. PLN-ZOTA-24-00002 was approved with zoning committee recommendations [timestamp: 16:00]. A waiver for PLN-MJDP-23-00030 was approved unanimously [timestamp: 17:00]. The meeting concluded with unanimous approval for a work session after the next zoning meeting [timestamp: 18:00]. ## Public Comment Six residents addressed the board during the public comment period, with traffic concerns and development issues being the primary topics of discussion. Marie Bradshaw spoke first [timestamp: 19:00], expressing concerns about high accident rates at the intersections of St. Margaret and Richmond Road. Her comments highlighted ongoing safety issues in the area. Jack Taylor followed [timestamp: 20:00], voicing opposition to the proposed development at 2041 Richmond Road. Taylor cited traffic and safety concerns as his primary reasons for opposing the project. Steve Fisher continued the traffic-related discussion [timestamp: 21:00], focusing specifically on concerns about traffic flow and potential blockage issues that could result from the proposed development site. Leslie Howard addressed the board [timestamp: 22:00] regarding the Kearney Hall subdivision, expressing concerns about both the number of apartment units planned and the anticipated traffic impact the development would generate in the area. The final two speakers shifted focus to the Fountains at Palomar project. Jay Connie spoke in support [timestamp: 23:00], specifically endorsing the proposed dumpster location for the development. Vicki Stevens concluded the public comment period [timestamp: 24:00] by requesting assurance regarding two specific aspects of the Fountains at Palomar project: the installation of a sound wall and clarification of maintenance responsibilities for the development. The public comments revealed a pattern of community concern about traffic impacts and safety issues related to various development projects, with residents seeking both opposition to some proposals and assurances about mitigation measures for others. ## Contested Items Two significant issues generated substantial debate during the May 9, 2024 meeting. **Proposed Development at 2041 Richmond Road** The proposed drive-thru restaurant and bank development at 2041 Richmond Road faced strong community opposition. Local residents voiced multiple concerns about the project's potential impacts on their neighborhood. The primary objections centered on anticipated increases in traffic volume, noise pollution from drive-thru operations, and general safety concerns for the surrounding residential area. The community opposition highlighted residents' worries about how the commercial development would affect their quality of life and neighborhood character. **Medicinal Cannabis Business Regulation** A heated discussion emerged regarding the zoning and regulation of medicinal cannabis businesses within the jurisdiction. The debate focused on determining appropriate locations for these operations, with particular attention to whether agricultural zones would be suitable for such businesses. Officials and participants examined the framework for conditional use permits and the regulatory structure needed to oversee medicinal cannabis operations. The discussion reflected the complexity of balancing business opportunities with community standards and regulatory compliance requirements. Both contested items demonstrated the ongoing challenges local governments face when balancing development interests with community concerns, and when establishing regulatory frameworks for emerging industries. The debates highlighted the importance of public input in municipal decision-making processes and the need for careful consideration of zoning decisions that affect both business operations and residential neighborhoods. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided source materials for this meeting.* ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 25:00] The meeting addressed Agenda Item IV regarding land subdivision matters, with Tom Martin serving as the primary speaker for this discussion segment. The agenda item focused on reviewing various subdivision plans that had been evaluated by the Subdivision Committee. Martin presented the committee's findings and recommendations for the subdivision proposals under consideration. This portion of the meeting was designated as an informational discussion, allowing for the presentation of subdivision-related matters without requiring immediate action or voting by the governing body. The format provided an opportunity for committee recommendations to be shared with the full board and for any questions or clarifications to be addressed. The specific details of individual subdivision plans, the committee's evaluation criteria, and any particular concerns or recommendations were discussed during this segment, though the exact nature of the proposals and committee findings would require reference to the full meeting transcript for complete details. As an informational item, no formal decisions or votes were taken during this discussion, with the presentation serving to keep the board informed of ongoing subdivision review activities and committee work. ## Zoning Items [timestamp: 26:00] Autumn Goderwis presented an overview of zoning map amendments and Zoning Ordinance text amendments during this informational discussion item. The presentation covered pending zoning changes and updates to the municipal zoning code. The agenda item served as a review session for current zoning matters under consideration by the municipality. Goderwis provided details on proposed amendments to both the zoning map, which designates land use classifications throughout the jurisdiction, and text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance itself. This was an informational presentation with no formal action taken by the governing body. The discussion allowed officials to review the status of zoning modifications and stay informed about ongoing land use planning initiatives. ## Public Hearings on Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments [timestamp: 27:00] The meeting included a public hearing session on proposed zoning ordinance text amendments, with Tracy Wade serving as a key speaker during the discussion. The primary focus of this agenda item was the regulation of medicinal cannabis businesses within the municipality's zoning framework. The discussion centered on proposed text amendments that would establish regulatory parameters for medicinal cannabis operations. These amendments represent an effort to create a comprehensive zoning structure that addresses the location, operation, and oversight of such businesses within the community. Tracy Wade participated in the presentation and discussion of these proposed changes, though the specific details of the amendments and any public comments received were not detailed in the available materials. The hearing provided an opportunity for public input on how medicinal cannabis businesses should be integrated into the existing zoning ordinance structure. This agenda item was classified as informational, indicating that no formal votes or binding decisions were made during this session. The public hearing format allowed for community members and stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposed regulatory framework before any final action is taken by the governing body. The discussion of medicinal cannabis business regulation reflects ongoing efforts by local governments to establish appropriate zoning controls for emerging industries while balancing community concerns and business interests. The proposed text amendments would provide the legal framework necessary to permit and regulate these operations within designated areas of the municipality. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from March 14, March 28, and April 11, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-24-24** — withdrawn (0-0): Withdrawal of item PLN-MJDP-24-24 - **PLN-MJDP-24-10** — postponed (0-0): Indefinite postponement of PLN-MJDP-24-10 - **PLN-MJDP-23-64** — postponed (0-0): One-month postponement of PLN-MJDP-23-64 to June 13, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-24-0030** — postponed (0-0): One-month postponement of PLN-MJDP-24-0030 to June 13, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-23-50** — postponed (0-0): One-month postponement of PLN-MJDP-23-50 to June 13, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-24-28** — postponed (0-0): One-month postponement of PLN-MJDP-24-28 to June 13, 2024 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of consent agenda excluding items PLN-MJDP-24-21 and PLN-MJDP-24-26 - **PLN-FRP-24-08** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-FRP-24-08 with 11 conditions - **PLN-FRP-24-09** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-FRP-24-09 with conditions - **PLN-FRP-24-09** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver findings for PLN-FRP-24-09 - **PLN-MJDP-24-11** — passed (0-1): Approval of PLN-MJDP-24-11 with conditions and additional note on bank use change - **PLN-MJDP-24-21** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-24-21 with 26 conditions - **PLN-MJDP-24-26** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-24-26 with 9 conditions - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00002** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-ZOTA-24-00002 with zoning committee recommendations and additional conditions - **PLN-MJDP-23-00030** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver for PLN-MJDP-23-00030 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of work session after next zoning meeting --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon, it is now 1.30. Welcome, welcome, welcome. It's May 9th meeting, I'd like to call this meeting to order. And first on the agenda, I'd like to skip the agenda here if I may, to take a motion for the performance bonds and letters of credit. It's on agenda page 12, item D. The floor is open for a motion. Move to approve performance bonds and letters of credit. Thank you, Mr. Pohl. Second. Seconded by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next on the agenda is agenda item two. We have approval of three sets of minutes. It's to March 14th, March 28th, and April 11th, all 20, 24 minutes. So the floor is open for a motion for the acceptance of those minutes as well. Ms. Meyer? I move for approval of the three sets of minutes as presented by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote in the affirmative on the March 14th and 28th minutes and going to abstain on the April 11th as I was not here for that meeting. Okay. Thank you. Okay, that motion passes. Any postponements and withdrawals? Good afternoon, Chairman and Commission members. Scott Schutte on behalf of the applicant. We will be withdrawing on page 7, bottom of page 7, top of page 8, item G, PLN, MJDP 24-24. Okay. All right. Is there anyone on the commission that has any questions, concerns? Did you say withdraw or postpone? Withdraw. Withdraw. Okay. All right. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Pohl. Move to approve withdrawal of PLNMJDP 24-24 Margaret W. Kamek property. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Thank you. And we will vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. If you'll turn in your agenda to page 5, item D, PLNMJDP 24-10, Distillery District West, Unit 1. We would ask for an indefinite postponement on this. Okay. That's PLNMJDP 24-10. The floor is open for a motion for the indefinite postponement. Ms. Meyer? Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. And then one more. on page four of your agenda, item C, PLN, MJDP 23-64, Belmont Farm Citation Center. On this one, we would ask for a one-month postponement, so it would be heard next month. Okay. And is that the 13th meeting? Is that correct? Okay. All right. Yes, June 13th. June 13th. Okay, thank you. Floor is open. Yes, Ms. Worth. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLNM JDP 230064 Bill Mount Farm to June the 13th as requested by the applicant. Thank you. Second. Second by Mr. Pohl. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. All right, motion passes. Mr. Owens, tell Mike to vote. Mike, Mike. He'll vote. Thank you. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hello, I'm Seth Farmer with Carmen. If I could direct your attention to page 11, item M, PLN, MJDP 24-0030 for Greendale Hills, Unit 3. I'd like to request a one-month postponement. Okay, thank you. So we have a request to make a one-month postponement for the June 13th meeting. Mr. Wilson? One quick question. What was your reasoning for that? Why did you wish to postpone? I had to work out some of the details of the design. Okay, thank you. Along those lines, Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone PLNMJDP 2030 Greendale Hills Unit 3 for one month or until June 13th. Second. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Hello. Lane and Sally here representing Burgess Carey. We've got page four, item B, PLN, MJ, DP, 2350. And we'd like to request another month postponement, please. Sir, can you speak? You just said one month? Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you. All righty. We bring it back to the commission for a motion. Mr. Pohl? Move to postpone PLNMJDP 2350 Wolf Run Industrial Park to the June 13th meeting. Thank you. Second. Second by Mr. Worth. If there's not any further discussion, please vote Villagranicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Bring it to the staff. There's not much left. Anything? Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, staff would like to bring your attention to page 10. Item K, this is Major Development Plan 24-28, the Preston Edition Subdivision. The applicant has informed staff by email that they would like to request a one-month postponement. There's still a lot of work to do on this particular plan. Okay, thank you. Bring this back to the commission for any questions. If there aren't any, the floor is open. Ms. Meyer? Per the request of the applicant, I'd like to move for postponement of PLN MJDP 2428 Preston Edition Subdivision. Thank you. To the June 13th meeting. We have a second. Second. Second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Please vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes unanimously. Okay, is that it? Ms. Wade? The next item for our agenda is the consent agenda to consider by the commission. And we do have seven items that currently appear on our consent agenda. however the staff is aware of one of them that has opposition so we'll just let them identify themselves as we go through the list and the Commission can remove that one so I'll just read the list as it's posted the first item is the final subdivision plans as recommended by the subdivision committee and that's on page three item c pln frp 24-12 lucas b combs property that's property located at 4347 shelby lane because this is an agricultural tract we also have a sign posting requirement and the surveyor has provided the affidavit that the sign was posted on the property the next item is um sorry is there anyone here today that wishes to speak about that particular plat the next item is a development plan for reapproval it appears on page two item a of your agenda pln mjdp 23-17 for man of war development unit 2a section 2 lot a2 that's an It's an amended final development plan for property at 1973 Bryant Road. Is there anyone here today that wishes to speak about this item? Okay. And then the next items are new items that have been recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. The first one is on page 7, item F, PLN MJDP 24-21 for the Ramsey-Sullivan property. Unit 3, Lot 2, also known as the Gardens of Kearney Ridge, an amended final development plan for property located at 2750 Meadowsweet Lane. Is there someone here today? Yes, okay, that item can be pulled for the commission's full consideration and the public input. The next item is on page 8, item H, PLN MJDP 24-25 for the Givens property. This is lot four for Panda Express, also an amended final development plan for property located at 2210 Georgetown Road. So anyone here to speak about this plan? Okay. The next item is on page nine, item I, PLNMJDP 24-26 for Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association property, Also known as the Fountains at Palomar, another amended final development plan for property at 3855 Fountain Blue Lane. So anyone that wishes to speak about this item? Yes, sir. So that one can be removed as well. And then on the second page of our consent agenda, page nine, item J, PLN and JDP 24-27. This is for the Interstate Park property, IVCP 8th and South, LLC, an amended final development plan for property located at 5354 8th and Spoonsboro Road. Is there anyone that wishes to speak about this item? Okay. And then lastly on page 11, item L, PLNMJDP 24-29, the Shoppers Choice property, also known now as the Public Supermarket, amended final development plan for property located at 357 Duke Road and 344 Romney Road. So everyone who wishes to speak about that item. So Chairman Forrester, we had the two items where we have the public that wishes to speak, so we can pull those, and then the rest can be considered with one motion. Okay, and also just a correction. the manor war development on our agenda says that is page two but it's actually page three on our paperwork sorry about that that's fine just make sure I get it to record so all right we'll bring us back and floor is open for emotion mr. chairman let me just say that that occurs on throughout the agenda the letters and pages are off on there also yeah so well I tried mr. Wilson are you ready for a motion I'm ready for a motion okay mr. chair I move approval of the consent agenda as approved by staff pulling two items which is the PLN JDP 2421 and PLN MJDP 2426. Second. Okay we have a motion by Mr. Wilson, second by Mr. Davis. Any further discussion? Thank you. We'll vote Villagranicus. Oh sorry the bald head one. The handsome one. Well, well, yeah. Ms. Meyer, I think we were waiting on your vote. Oh, I'm sorry. You're fine, I understand. Okay, all right, motion passes unanimously. And so that'll bring us back to page two, PLN FRP 24-8. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, first item on your agenda is under final subdivision plans FRP 24-08 New Market Property Phase 1. This is somewhat of an interesting situation. As you all are aware, normally final record plats were brought to you with a waiver request or a finding is required because there's been some request for a deviation from the requirements on the plat. In this particular situation, the plat that was filed originally, and you can see it before you today, deviated significantly from the approved preliminary subdivision plan in that I've got to remember, I don't have to turn around anymore, that along this section of the property, here's Deerhaven, This is the key to the, here's Deerhaven right here, rural road in your expansion area. You see the lots that are proposed right through here on the previous, on the approved preliminary supervision plan, those lots ended basically at that location. And you could see that there was a large HOA green space area adjacent to Deerhaven. And that is consistent with the expansion area, with the status of the rural road, which is Deerhaven was classified as a rural scenic road. And that setback has very strong restrictions in it under the zoning ordinance. You can't build in it. You can have a transparent fence or a stone fence. And that's how the plan was originally approved. Then, let's see, I can do this right. They brought this in. And it was their desire to subdivide it with long, long rectangular lots, you can see, and basically take that HOA, that protected area, and out of an HOA, away from being a single lot, and then lot it in these long rectangular lots. Now, not only did it deviate from the preliminary subdivision plan, your subdivision regulations in dealing with lot size, they're not absolutes. You can't be absolute out there on the ground because of topography and other issues. But there is a recommended geometry. And in this case, with this layout, in the original layout, that geometry was easily met and they met it on the original plan and on a preliminary sub-vision plan. That geometry is roughly 2.5 to 1 length to width. And it was very consistent, satisfied the requirements of the regs. And then when they brought this in, staff said, well, this is an awful big change. And it not only affects the geometry, very unusual to extreme with no justification, And it also affected the ability to enforce the zoning restrictions in that large green space area. So it was discussed at length at your subdivision committee. We spent a lot of time with your subdivision committee discussing this plan. Subsequently, they made a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda which was revise it back to its original layout which they have done they have submitted a revision but you can see here that matches the original approval the original layout and addresses the concerns that staff expressed to your subdivision committee and which they acted on as you can see on your agenda. So with that, staff would recommend that again, as your subdivision committee did, that you approve this, but you can literally just delete 12, 13, and 14. Because those were the issues of concern that staff had that shared with your subdivision committee and they agreed. They had the same concerns about the new geometry and about about the ability to monitor and enforce the restrictions on that large green space area adjacent to Deerhaven. Be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? Thank you Mr. Martin. Applicant. I'm Dick Murphy representing the owner, Rory Kaley is with me from EA Partners. And as Mr. Martin mentioned, I think we have addressed all the concerns that were brought up at the subdivision committee. So we ask your approval deleting those last three conditions. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for the applicant? I don't think so. last checks anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application do so by stepping up to the podium cnn bring it back mister davis mister chairman i move for approval of peel it for p twenty four dash eight for the with the eleven conditions as noted on our job motion in the second mom's worth Please vote via Granicus. Okay. No ground. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. You're welcome. Still on page two of the agenda, PLN FRP 24-9. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. That is indeed final record plat 24-9, Boonesboro Manor. also known as Interstate Park property. This is located out at 5354 Athens Boonesboro. And this is before you today because there is a waiver, and you should have that report in your packet of materials. There's a waiver associated with this particular final record plat. Now, we are out on Athens Boonesboro, headed out to the interstate, which is out in here. Up here you would find your soccer stadium and the soccer fields in this area of the property. Let me see. I'll keep it here for now. So again, you have your frontage along Athens Boonesboro. Doe Run exists here up to this point. You have your speedway and other, a little bit of development in that section. This particular plat is creating four tracks, four lots and it's dedicating competition drive and this remaining portion of doe run trail which will go down and connect to the existing dedicated part of that public street again you can see they're creating this track this track this track and then this large middle track right through in here which is primarily detention and an environmentally sensitive area with a stream and steep slopes, et cetera, that sort of thing. The waiver that's been requested with this is very much a timing waiver. The public improvements are underway. They've been working out here quite diligently, as you all are very much aware. They have a lot of concerns with timing and getting the soccer facility open and getting the season going and that sort of thing. So they've been working very hard out here on the public improvements. In addition to that, the development plan that you approved on your consent agenda shows a development for Track D. So they have a buyer. They have a proposal to develop Track D. It is a fast food, appears to be a coffee place. Access to that will be off of the access easement across Track 1E to Track 1D to that development. They are actually requesting a waiver to 4-7C1, which is substantial completion. Quite often, this will apply to one aspect of your public improvements. In this case, although they've been making progress, it's literally all the required public improvements. It's going to be the street improvements, those public improvements, some of the stormwater facilities, detention, stormwater pipe, those sorts of things. That system is still under construction. And then most importantly, and you all have heard about this, I know you've heard it a long time, from the beginning with the zone change for the soccer, with every development that's been out there, and that is the sanitary sewer situation that exists. And that's, to this waiver is the real key, because that's the most complicated problem that they've been working on to solve. As you all may again recall, there's a pump station across Athens-Boonsboro Road. It sits down in here in that lower area of that proposed industrial development. It's behind the commercial development. It sits down in there close to the stream. there's a pump station. It's publicly owned. It's ours. It was built through a cooperative agreement with the previous owners of that property. It replaced the old Blue Sky pump station, which was inadequate, frankly, from day one. Never, ever really functioned as intended. It was written up constantly by the state of Kentucky for violations. and after many years, the city stepped in, worked out a deal with the property owners, the previous property owners on the existing pump station, and constructed that pump station. However, it was built with certain capacity requirements, and that was based on existing zoning, existing development, and it was not anticipated at that time that something, the scope of the soccer facility would come in. So they had to step back and do a lot of calculations, a lot of sewer calculations, and a lot of math in trying to figure out these flows and figure out the capacity. And they've made progress with that. They set and worked out a plan with our water quality sanitary sewer division to address that. And it is interesting. it's important to note that not all your flows are equal. Your sanitary sewer flows are not equal. Some are larger than others, obviously, depending on the use, and they come at different times. And the use of a stadium certainly is a good example of that. They worked out a way to address this problem now. Now, in the future, every time a development comes through out here on every one of these remaining outlots, across the road, we're going to be having that discussion with that applicant on that development to keep monitoring and making sure that that capacity can be addressed by that pump station, by the Lexington-Fedrobin County, by our public pump station. Now, currently what they've proposed is they are going to build their own private pump station on their property. This will allow them to regulate their flows and its impact on the public pump station. Now, this is a temporary solution. How temporary? Remains to be seen. That's going to be based on future development and other things that could happen in the area that would impact the public pump station and the public infrastructure. This will allow them enough capacity and then some to go ahead and develop that tract, which means they can sell that tract. And we understand that money will come into them. They're spending a lot of money out here. This development has cost them a lot of money, a lot of outgo. certainly like any developer they're interested in getting some money back in to help pay for these these public these infrastructure costs that they've incurred and and certainly this solution with a private pump station is is significant it's as you all know it's not something that's encouraged but in this case it is the best solution to address this problem with capacity at this time. I could get into more detail, it's probably better that if you have any detailed questions about that, that engineers can answer those for you. But staff is recommending approval of the plat, along with approval of the waiver. Be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Do we have any questions for Mr. Martin at this time? Yes sir, Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom, help me orient myself. If I'm correct, there's like two C-stores out there right now. Two what? If I'm correct, there's like two C-stores to. Oh, yes, sir. On either side of the competition? Yes, sir. Okay. There's a, I want to say a shell, but has it changed? Three. They're on Doe Run. Yeah, they're on Doe Run. Yeah, existing. They're on Doe Run? Yeah, existing on Doe Run. One here, Speedway's right there, and then I think it's a Shell or some similar across the road, across Doe Run. Two C-stores. I see. Okay. And I think, what is it, a Wendy's across the road? Across the street, yeah. Okay. Okay, and you're saying, did I understand you right? You're saying that the new pump station that they're proposing will be just a temporary solution? the private pump station that they're proposing on their property will be temporary again how temporary for how long it's it's hard to say mr owens very hard to say okay though though it so much depends on what happens on the public pump station and to give you more details and i and i didn't want to get too far in the weeds with you but when that pump station was built it was built an agreement with the previous property owners and their LLC, that LLC is gone. That agreement did not carry forward to the new property owners. So the cost of upgrading that public pump station is a public responsibility. So that played into the concerns and the negotiations on helping this move forward. Because if it was going to be strictly public dollars, they were going to have to wait on us. And so again, they obviously have that time frame they're concerned about and they want to start playing soccer. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Mr. Martin, not seeing any other questions at the moment. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, my name is Stephanie Blaine. I'm with Palmer Engineering here on behalf of the owner of the property. Thanks to Tom for giving a detailed recount of a fairly complicated situation. There was one thing I did want to clarify is that the pump station that we're proposing is actually on the stadium lot. And that is likely going to be in service. It's likely not going to be temporary. Just because of the nature of a stadium is we have very high sewer flows for a very short amount of time. and to get those flows to the pump station and process that capacity requires a lot of upgrades both for the city and for the infrastructure that we're building and so we came up with a solution we're working with the water quality folks and our stadium designers to control the release so we actually have a system that's going to be installed with the stadium that will temporarily hold the sewage and release it at a slower rate so the pump station doesn't have to pump the peak level of sewer flow because it's not something that you know with the being a stadium we're not going to have this continuous flow every day of the week it's going to be one day a week when we have a game there and there'll be portions of the year where we're you know during the winter where there may not be very high flows for many weeks at a time as Tom mentioned we did work closely with division of water or division of water quality on working through the sewer upgrades they've made some improvements to the pump station that gives us a little bit of extra capacity within the last few weeks we are requesting this waiver because as Tom said it is a matter of time we really hoped that we could have all the improvements complete by June of this year that was our initial goal this spring has been rough for construction. We've had a lot of rain. We also had some pretty complicated utility relocations, overhead utilities, and we had a big storm back at the very beginning of April. And so all the crews that were scheduled for our site were pulled off, sent around the state to get people back on power, get their communications lines back online. So we lost about, ended up losing about four to five weeks of our timeline schedule because of that relocation the relocation doesn't allow us to finish the mass grading until those lines are moved we actually got good news that work was complete today so we're hopefully going to keep that ball rolling right now we're scheduled to play soccer at this stadium at the end of the summer and so our contractor and our design team has been working very diligently to try to make sure that happens the scheduling from the contractor that we received most recently says that all the roadway and storm sewer infrastructure should now be complete by the end of June we've run into a few complication issues with the sanitary gravity sewer that has delayed construction on that but that should be done about two weeks later so we're expecting by middle of July that all this infrastructure should be in place really just asking for this waiver as a means to start looking at transferring properties and looking at development because as Tom said this is very expensive I guess if you all have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Davis. Thank you for the explanation. I have one question that is a what is the total cost of the new sump pump and what portion of that burden comes back on the city? So the private pump station? I'm not sure the total cost but none of it will come back to the city. It's part of the it's going to be fully private on the stadium lot and it will basically you know we're anticipating peak flows about 400 gallons per minute we're gonna be reducing those all the way down to 87 gallons per minute so a pretty significant reduction in in the peak flow do we have any further questions for the applicant thank you thank you yes Ms. Worth? I'd just like to ask Ms. Atkins, does she have anything she wants to add from water quality? She said no. Okay, thank you. All right. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay. So we'll bring it back to the commission. any further discussions or not the floor is open mr chairman wilson okay just let me get my grammar to set up here and a waiver request okay i'll do the i'll do the first and then do the waiver second right yes sir okay uh mr chairman i move approval for pln frp 24-9 boonesboro manor interstate park with the conditions provided by staff. Okay, we have a motion. Second. Second. That was Mr. Wilson that made the motion. It says Mr. Jonathan Davis. I don't know which one looks better than the other, but let's leave that alone. Okay. I'm going to consider it a tie. Hold on, Mr. Wilson. Jonathan's got a vote and Graham. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And I consider our looks a tie, so we should move to the waiver. I would also like to approve the PLNFRP 24-9, the waiver, with the findings as provided to staff. Okay, thank you. And we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Seconded by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Please vote via Granicus. I think this is all on TV. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All righty, so that should take us to page 6 of the agenda, PLN MJDP 24-11. We do have revised staff recommendations as well. And I do know we have two citizens that will be speaking. Thank you. Maybe more. I just knew I had to. good afternoon okay this property is located we have Richmond Road and then we have I get this st. Margaret here and I get the Coleman Coleman okay Boulevard we this is I allow a shopping center we used to have a huge restaurant on here which had the jellyfish in it they're tearing down that restaurant they're coming back they're proposing to have a drive-thru restaurant and a bank we have access that comes across the property and continues into the rest of the shopping center they came in with the revision and when they did they also came in with the copy of a deed to make note that this is an access easement that but now it comes across the front of the property. With that, you can see on the list of the cleanup conditions, we have just our typical sign-offs. We have document board of adjustment decision for building setback variance. They will be going to the board of adjustment on Monday. This is B1 zone, so in the B1 zone, the structure should be pulled up to the front property line within 10 to 20 feet. So they're going to the Board of Adjustments with that. So we want to make sure that they denote what the outcome is for the Board of Adjustments. And then we have resolve compliance with Articles 16 and 18. When they go to the Board of Adjustments, there might be some additional conditions as far as with the parking and the landscaping within the parking on the Board of Adjustment case. Therefore, we wanted to leave that open as a resolve with this plan. And so I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. I have a question. You said they've got the access across the parallel to Richmond Road. Have they made any other changes to this plan since we saw it in subdivision committee? I mean, they've made some minor tweaks. They show the open space with this plan. they showed the landscape buffer that that we have for the vehicle use screening they showed interior landscaping not really a whole lot of changes they still show the access doors facing side to the side of the property as opposed facing front wards to the Richmond Road which typically that's how we get our addresses is where the front door faces other than that no not really Do you know what the drive-thru restaurant is? No, ma'am, I sure don't. They haven't said anything. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any more questions for staff at the moment? All right. We do have a number of e-mails that the staff received to the planning mailbox, and Cheryl's going to hand those out to you. as well as a petition by the nearby neighborhood that we'll distribute. Okay, thank you. You got enough? Oh, people. For your knowledge. Okay. Okay. Between some of us. Okay. Good afternoon, Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. First off, I wanted to just go over, there are some changes from the previous plan that we've made. Around the perimeter on the first plan, the setbacks, the requirement is eight feet or average of eight feet for perimeter screening. it can be less but it's got an average eight feet I think five is maybe the minimum but on this plan we have eight feet all the way around so we meet that on here I've kind of got a color key and what that does is it it lists all the color areas tells what they are it shows the lighter green that's the based on the paved area that's the required landscaping interior landscaping the darker green is vegetative open space and it's kind of hard to tell on there but there's uh uh red kind of a crosshatch that overlays sidewalks it overlays some of the green areas and that is your usable open space so i just wanted to point out that we do meet the requirements for landscaping and open space and and that's what article 16 and 18 of a lot of what it'll cover and then the board of adjustment we we do have a board of adjustment scheduled for monday and we do have a favorable staff recommendation on that as well there's some items i'll probably be discussing with them tomorrow one is has to do with the orientation of the buildings the restaurant i'll go ahead and say right now it's looking like it's going to be a huey magoo's restaurant i don't know if any of y'all have heard of that but it's it's kind of similar to a raising canes uh but uh they're operating hours they don't serve breakfast they open at 10 30 and and they close at nine i believe the drive-through may be open till 10 they're open seven days a week the bank next door operating hours on it would be Monday through Thursday eight or nine to four Friday nine to five Saturday nine to noon and closed on Sunday some another thing we've worked on on this plan I know up in this area here the pedestrian crossing on the road was not ideal and there was nothing there was no crosswalk marked the distance it's kind of diagonal you can you can see the darker sidewalk ramps that was where people were having to walk before so what we're proposing is to make this a perpendicular crosswalk more idea it's it's a shorter distance form to walk it's more visible to the drivers now that they know that's a crosswalk and so it should should be helpful to the pedestrians a traffic study was not required for this but we we did do kind of a traffic review and some things I wanted to point out based on the current Well, first of all, the Richmond Road, it has an average daily traffic count of 25,500 cars. It's an arterial street. And St. Margaret has an average daily traffic count of 1,840. It's a minor collector street. we looked at based on the ITE traffic manuals what what the trip generation would be during the peak hour for the existing restaurant that's there and it was a coba restaurant and then I think for a period of time it was a Brazilian steakhouse but for that type of use the peak hour for this would be midday lunch there is no morning breakfast at the restaurant so peak hour would be noon for the Coba restaurant we're looking at 79 cars in and 79 out during the during the peak hours. When you look to the future with this development and you combine the two buildings, the restaurant and the bank, the average trips in was 88 and the average trips out is 89. And it is a slight increase of nine trips in and 11 out. And that would be considered pretty benign as far as traffic goes insignificant we also looked at the level of service which is how the intersections are graded we looked at this intersection here and up here so at this intersection here today the level of service level service here is a B and the level of service here is an A and that's just a rating to rate how well the intersection functions and it has to do with how long you're waiting in traffic so so today we're at a here a B here in the future when the two restaurants develop no change a B so there's really no significant changes due due to traffic the other thing I'd like to point out is the uses we're we're asking for their principal uses the the bank is the number one item listed under principal use I think when you skip down to restaurants it might be 15 or 18 but their principal uses they're allowed the drive-through is an accessory use to the principal use so it is permitted but with that we're in agreement with with the 12 conditions on the staff's report and we can answer any questions you have now yes got a couple questions it was worth then mr. nickel and mr. Davis ladies first I'm looking at a letter from someone named Marie Bradshaw who's a resident of the neighborhood and there's a sentence here that says St. Margaret Richmond Road and St. Anne Richmond Road intersections have some of the highest accident rates in the city as reported in the local news. I know you didn't do a traffic study but do you have any information that addresses that concern? I'm glad you asked that. Actually, I would disagree with that statement. We pulled the traffic accidents from the Kentucky State Police. They keep a record of all the traffic accidents in Lexington. For the last five years on St. Margaret, there's been a total of five accidents. We looked. During that time, COBA was not open, and so I thought, well, let's go back further. So we went back six more years back, and I've got that in my book, but it was a total, in the six years, it was more like, I'd say, around 10 or 11 accidents. So if you add the two together over the 11 years we looked, there may have been 15 accidents, maybe a few more. But I would disagree that that is a major accident area. Yes, I've got a question for you. Understanding that this is a B1 property with principal uses being uses that serve the neighborhood. something that we had looked at during the subdivision committee was the current difficulties that pedestrians are having from across richmond road accessing the b1 neighborhood uses can you explain to me the improvements that i'm seeing here on the corner of richmond road and saint margaret that help alleviate this problem of pedestrian crossing and access to the neighborhood businesses well on Richmond Road there is no sidewalk along Richmond Road the grade differential between our site and Richmond Road is it's six or seven feet difference in elevation there's a there's a paved roadway ditch runs the entire length of the property there's a retaining wall that runs the entire length of the property there below the retaining wall there's probably a three to one slope that's probably two or three feet high and then the retaining walls two or three feet high on top of that so one thing we're we're doing is instead of having a sidewalk here we have at our entrance we have a sidewalk that goes in you you can see barely see we've got a cross hatch but we got a sidewalk that goes all the way across the property and it ties into the joining buildings to the sidewalks there there's this there's existing sidewalk that runs down st. Margaret the length of the property here there's a there's a crosswalk across st. Margaret here at the intersection with Richmond Road also within our site we've got sidewalks run in parallel the building they come together and then they go up to Coburn so as far as access for pedestrians in our site we have I would call it very pedestrian friendly but there's really no way to make Richmond Road any better just given the terrain and the conditions that we have there that being said what we've what I've seen in the subdivision committee that this is an an improvement to pedestrian access because now it is a difficult site to get the residents from across the street to utilize the neighborhood businesses. So I commend you for that effort. First of all, thank you for your report. It's been very detailed. I've been learning some things here. but one question I had for my own edification, and that is when you were talking about the current traffic ratings, one being A and the other being currently a B rating, I was curious as to what formula did you use to extrapolate what the future rating would be given the increased traffic flow? I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm reading the report. But we do have in-house a traffic engineer. His name is Mark McIntosh. The staff is very familiar with his work. But he's not here today. He would be the one to answer exactly the formulas he uses. But I will say that it takes into account we went out and did traffic counts at those two intersections. So we're taking existing information, real information. It takes into account the average daily traffic that I told you, the 25,000 cars on Richmond Road, the 1,800 cars on St. Margaret. There's a lot of information that goes in traffic study, but I couldn't go into the detail of how they arrived. But I will say A is the best you can be. B is considered for an arterial in that intersection, and B is considered excellent. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Mayer. Mr. Carter, since we heard this in subdivision committee, have you had any engagement with the neighborhood about this plan? Okay, one thing I forgot to add, the owner, he's here, Lee Greer and Kyle Champion. And I know, Kyle, have you had some conversations? So Kyle has had conversations, I'm not sure who with, but so he could address any conversations, you know, what was said. I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about the conversation. We just discussed, I took it as a fact-finding meeting, and just wanted to hear from their point of view, since they live in the neighborhood, what their concerns might be, and then relay that on to the rest of the ownership, which is probably why Matt has some of the information he does on traffic studies and accidents and pedestrian walks, because that was the biggest concern that I heard from them were pedestrians. And then at the end of the meeting, I propose to them, hey, if you've got an idea that would improve this and make this better, if you can come up with something, we're all ears. And to date, I've not heard back from them. I'm curious about the parking. Kyle Champion, for the record. I'm curious. I mean, it looks like there's indoor seating in this proposed restaurant. I can't speak to that. I think so, too, but I can't say for sure. indoor seating yes I mean I mean what's the what's the capacity what's the I believe it was 42 I would say 49 to 49 or 50 is my guess that if that's square footage I'd say 49 is do you have I believe there's like 60 the counts are on there but I can't I'm not good enough to see that I believe it's like 61 or two for both lots combined and and there is shared access between the development on the parking just to clarify it's it does have indoor seating but i'm looking at the two lanes of fulfillment or whatever those are it's primarily a carry out business is that correct no no i i've been to humi goose in georgia and it's uh anymore you're going to see more and more drive-throughs like that just because it's more efficient and the stacking it's easier uh to you know to keep cars from stacking out in the road and they can just serve the people quicker it's just more efficient that's why they do it but the human goes I went to there was more people going in than there was in the drive-through so that raises the question of why so many parking spaces well there's two there there's not a lot parking this is there's two users there there's a bank hewitt McGooze is probably going to have 10 employees and there's going to be shift changes where where employees are coming and employees are going there'll be overlaps and again it's shared parking adjoining development can use the parking but i will say this and this will be addressed at the board of adjustment there is some discussion about this this four parking spaces right there that are kind of adjacent to the drive-through and i will be discussing those in more detail on monday but But part of their recommendation was to remove those four places. So, and if that happens, that would put our parking count in the 50s. And to be honest, then I would be worried we don't have enough, so. Mr. Neville. I've got a question regarding the neighborhood meeting, so I guess Mr. Champion. When you were having conversations with the neighbors, was the main concern the principal use of the B1 space, which is a restaurant? From my memory when I discussed it with them, I said, is there something that would make you happy? They said anything but a drive-thru restaurant. Okay, and I'm sure we'll hear that. I believe they mentioned a drive-thru coffee shop would be their nightmare. I think I see that in their notes, that's the reason I wanted to bring it up. But just want to reference that it is a primary principle use of the B1 property itself. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Let me have any further questions for the applicant. Okay, I've seen that. Thank you Mr. Carter. This is a time for citizen comments. And I know we have some individuals that would like to speak on this particular application. Can do so by stepping up to the podium. And Paula, do you have the names of the individuals that I had, what I had sent an email? Do you not have the iPad? Got the names of the two individuals. down okay okay i just want to make sure thank you okay mr chairman members of the um planning commission i am beata popkin i'm the president of the idle our neighbors alliance and i'm speaking on behalf of the idle our neighborhood um i would like to begin my speech and i would like to hand it over in between to my colleague and fellow neighborhood board member jack taylor jack is a little bit in a hurry so i would like for him to have his say especially since it is about traffic and traffic is a big item and the ilarra neighborhood strongly objects to new drive-throughs through businesses to new drive-through businesses at this site. The property is Zone B1, which means neighborhood business zone. The zoning ordinance for Lexington clearly states, and I quote, the intent of this zone is to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area. This zone should be oriented to support and enhance a residential neighborhood And this is the end of the quote. This plan does not serve the Idle Hour neighborhood. It is entirely focused on the Richmond Road corridor and on serving its commuters. The plan completely ignores our established 65-year-old neighborhood with its family houses and multifamily apartment buildings. 120 idle our neighbors have signed a petition to oppose the drive-through businesses they say that they consider the plan detrimental to the safety character and livability of our neighborhood they are concerned about traffic noise and aesthetics in this development I lower residents have written letters to you the members of the planning commission which i understand you just received to express their fears about this development and to voice their objection their main concerns are the hugely increased traffic it would bring to the entire neighborhood and the noise that would come along with it our small neighborhood already suffers from the traffic and noise of four drive restaurants for drive-through fast food restaurants we do not need another one in here Jack will talk about the traffic that we anticipate and which is very different from what mr. Carter detailed mr. chairman and members of the Commission my name is Jack Taylor I'm a member of the board of the Eidolour Neighbors Alliance and I'm speaking on behalf of the residents of Idle Hour Neighborhood. I oppose the proposed development of a drive-through fast food or coffee business at 2041 Richmond Road. The proposed business would be accessed by either St. Margaret Drive or Coburn Boulevard. The plan shows St. Margaret Drive as the primary point of entry and exit. The intersections at Coburn and St. Margaret as well as Richmond Road and St. Margaret are already problematic for both drivers and pedestrians due to low visibility, lack of crosswalks, a lane division, and a high incidence of speeding. Many people walk on St. Margaret Drive crossing Coburn as well as Richmond Road. We have high school students traveling to and from Henry Clay School, people using the public bus that has two stops there, and pedestrians accessing the idle hour shops and restaurants. It turns out we already have a very similar traffic situation just a block away. Between 2014 and 2024, 312 collisions occurred at the intersections of Richmond Road with St. Anne and Coburn and St. Anne, and this was sourced from CrashInformationKY.org using the Lexington police filter. It's important to note that this section of St. Anne Drive is already flanked by two shops with drive-throughs. By contrast, there were 150 collisions using the same resource occurring at the very similar intersection of St. Margaret over the same time period and this is less than half of what we already have. The volume of traffic that the proposed development at St. Margaret Drive would create is pretty terrible according to a publication of the Institute of Transportation Engineers which was kindly supplied to us by the LFUCG planning staff. I'm speaking of traffic generation the 7th edition volume 3 of 3. According to this industry text a fast food restaurant of a thousand square feet with a drive-through window would generate an average of 496 trips on a weekday. The restaurant proposed here would cover 2,700 square feet, so multiplying 496 by 2.7 brings us up to an average of 1,340 trips expected almost every day from the restaurant alone. The development plan also calls for a drive-through bank. According to the same publication and the same calculation, the proposed bank would generate an average number of 715 trips every weekday. So adding 715 trips from the bank to 1,340 trips for the restaurant, we get over 2,000 trips each weekday entering and exiting our neighborhood through an already compromised intersection where we have high school students, shoppers, and riders from city buses walking to and from their destinations. There's been a lot of talk lately about making Lexington more walkable, but this development plan is geared towards achieving the exact opposite. The number of collisions seems destined to approach the one we already have just down the road at St. Anne. Again, that number is 312 over the last 10 years. For these very serious safety concerns, I must oppose this proposal. The people of our neighborhood should not have to bear the potential traffic and safety impacts for a business which is built to serve only commuters but not our neighborhood. If the Planning Commission does find it appropriate to approve this plan, I would like to request the following. speed remediation on St. Margaret Drive for increased safety, specifically bulb outs, pedestrian safety at the Coburn and St. Margaret intersections, specifically a raised crosswalk, and all business lighting should be downward facing, not outward facing, to reduce driver distraction and increase driver and pedestrian visibility. Thank you for your consideration. Can we field questions right now? Is there any questions? I wanted to wait and see if there's anyone else that would like to speak and then I can. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. So, there in our neighborhood, the residents in six multi-family apartment buildings directly across the street from the proposed drive-throughs, they would particularly suffer from the noise pollution, exhaust fumes, and excessive lighting that the proposed development would bring. Renters, of course, are often ignored when inappropriate developments occur, but some of the neighbors who signed our petition are renters, and I suggest that their voices and living conditions be considered here 50 of lexington residents are renters another issue 10 years ago idlour residents created pollinator gardens in the traffic medians at saint margaret drive and and at saint and drive and and we have maintained these gardens since then they provide attractive entrances into our neighborhood and their maintenance helps us build community among our neighbors. The entrance median at St. Anne is flanked by two businesses with drive-through aisles. It requires regular and frequent trash pickup if it's going to look good. Picking up trash there occurs under hazardous traffic conditions, but we do it anyway because we care about our neighborhood. At St. Margaret Drive, which is where this new development is supposed to occur, this site, a very similar situation would arise because the traffic configuration is very similar to St. Anne. Tons of trash to be picked up by neighborhood volunteers in constantly flowing dangerous traffic. I come to our meeting with Mr. Champion now. About six weeks ago, we from the Idle Our Neighbors Alliance reached out to the Greer companies to initiate a conversation between them and our neighborhood. Kyle Champion, who is listed here as the applicant and who just spoke for this, responded to our email by inviting us to speak with him. He began the meeting by saying that this was, for the company, an effort to hear what Idle our neighbors are thinking, and he called it a fact-finding mission, so he didn't promise anything else. Nevertheless, the meeting was genial and raised in us the hope for further conversations with the Greers, initiated by the Greer Company, since we had done the first initiation. But such initiatives have not happened. We have done our due diligence, but it seems that the applicant has chosen a more adversarial way of proceeding, which is what has brought us here into this room. Okay, this is the end of my speech proper, but I have also been advised to speak about some contingencies or conditions in case that this development plan should go through. First of all, we would like for the developer to finance some serious traffic calming measures, most especially bulbouts on St. Margaret, to install the race pedestrian walk, and Jack already mentioned that, on Coburn and St. Margaret, but not flashing lights to warn people of pedestrian crossings because that in front of people's bedroom windows would not be a good thing. Keep all lighting downward. Keep all advertising in a low position on Richmond Road, not along our neighborhood streets. Dedicate serious space for landscaping and install attractive landscape plants far beyond the minimum requirement. Mr. Carter mentioned that the setback there between St. Margaret and, I mean, that their border around there is now eight feet instead of five feet, but it still all matters what gets planted. I noticed that the conditions of their BOA approval to be expected on Monday will already require substituting landscaping for a few parking spots. He mentioned, Mr. Carter just mentioned that as well. But we ask that landscaping in this lodge, which is heavy on asphalt and impervious surfaces, goes far beyond the minimum requirement and makes the site truly attractive and sustainable. And the last condition, move that dumpster away from the location of St. Margaret and Coburn. That's a terrible location. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you on behalf of my neighbors. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this application? Yes, sir. Should I ask for questions? No. You want to speak. Ladies and gentlemen, if you've driven past Chick-fil-A in that same area, you will have to drive through the Southland Christian parking lot to get around them. The situation is already aggravated with parking along Coburn already. I live on St. Margaret, just two houses up from that intersection. And it's disastrous as we start thinking about this. And I would like to veto the idea of a bank and a restaurant being put in the spot. Thank you. Sir, will you state your name and address? My name is Terry Layman. I live at 130 St. Margaret. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? My name is Steve Fisher. I live at 2132 St. Michael Drive, which is back further into idle hour. Would it be possible to show the diagram of the plot? I had not seen this diagram before, but one of the things I wanted to point out about traffic flow is very similar to what Terry just said. And that is the blockage and traffic pattern that that's going to create a problem for, especially on St. Margaret. If that is anywhere close to scale, the drive through can handle 15 cars at one time without coming back into the front of the access across there. If more cars come in and are in the queue, they're going to go out onto St. Margaret. And St. Margaret entrance is actually going away from Richmond Road. So they would have to go back out onto Richmond Road to have access to get in there. If they go the other direction, then they are going into the bank and they are cutting off access in and out of the bank's drive through and extending further on into what is the idle hour area with the other stores in it. So one of the things this does, if they're talking about there being a thousand vehicles going through in a day, if they have a capacity of 15 cars at a time that don't block the other pathway, my concern is how is that going to be feasible and what are they going to do? And it mimics what Terry said over at the Chick-fil-A. There you have a great big parking lot where you can actually drive into the parking lot, make a detour around to get to the other side. In this area, there is absolutely no place for the cars to go around if they're trying to travel in there. And it doesn't look like there's really any feasible way for access if you come off the Coburn Drive, that St. Margaret is going to be the only access for those drive-throughs. That's what I wanted to point out. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. All right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? All right. Thank you. Applicant, do you have any comments? Just a few things I wanted to point out. So the neighbors are concerned that these are not uses that serve a neighborhood. And I would like to point out that it's B1 zone. Every single use in the principal uses is there to serve a neighborhood. We're asking for two principal uses. So the other thing is they said there were four drive-thrus. This development is Idle Hour Shopping Center. It has one drive-thru, Fazoli's. I believe the other ones they're talking about are unrelated to this development. They're in Southland Church in front of it. Most likely that's what I think they're talking about. They have separate entrances onto Richmond Road. I'm not here to discuss the traffic problems down there, just our impacts to those two intersections. As far as Kyle Champion, when he talked with the neighbors, he got their concerns, and we, you know, they say we didn't get back with them. Well, what we did was we added an improved crosswalk here. That was because of their concerns. I don't want them to think we're being adversarial. I want them to think of us as good neighbors. They want them to come to these businesses, and I'm sure they will. again it's going to be very walkable as far as the traffic you know when you when you go on internet and do a search you're going to get all kinds of information and if you're not a trained professional traffic engineer you do not know how to interpret these numbers what we have is accurate there's not going to be thousands of cars a day because of these two businesses it's just not true be glad to answer any questions not seeing any questions for you mr carter just yet oh sorry sorry uh thank you mr chair mr carter i heard traffic calming concerns on saint margaret i think that's more of a traffic engineering type question. Have y'all offered any though? We have not but I'm not so sure the city would want a raised crosswalk at a stop sign. That's kind of why I said it's more of a traffic engineering thing. Yeah. Signage and dumpster. Can you address those? The dumpster I mean it's where it works best the dumpster solid waste likes to have a circular pattern where they can hit one dumpster go around the site hit the next without having to back up and maneuver and this meets it there's really no other place to put it that works so the double dumpster is for the restaurant so it needs to be on that side of the property can't put it in the front any any thoughts as to signage low low level signage could you all address sign i don't are you talking about i mean i'm not sure your question well the signage for these came up and are we talking about oh high rise high signage or monument signs or any thoughts on that sir you just sir excuse me you just step up to the podium this also isn't my expertise so please take that consideration but there is an existing monument sign that was in front of cove that was approved as a landmark sign um that i imagine will be changed out with something and the monument base remain the same as far as any building signage there's not been any discussion and other certain regulations based on you know road front engine and linear square feet what they're allowed and a certain height too so there's been no discussion with any of the tenants on signage okay thank you there is a height restriction in B1 25 feet thank you Okay. Is there any other questions? Mr. Davis? Yes, I have one question. I guess in the interest of compromise, the gentle lady, she was very adamant about, I guess, the flora and fauna they're very proud of in their neighborhood currently. And I think one of her concerns was, is the additional flora and fauna you guys going to add to the property? Could it be consistent with what they have going on there? Is there any chance to compromise there? We can look into that. We have a landscape architect on our staff and he certainly can look at what is in the neighborhood and as long as it's in the approved planning list with the city, we can certainly look into that. A lot of the older neighborhoods have trees that are no longer allowed, but we can certainly look into that. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Pohl. Matt, on the plan, there's areas that are noted as usable open space. And to the south of the restaurant, there's an area that appears to have tables. Is that an exterior space? It's exterior. It's outdoor. And yet there's a door indicated on that? Does it have some sort of enclosure? No, it's open. It has a fence around it, but it's an outdoor seating area. And then the area to the left of the drive-through window? No, where the trash area is, there's an area that's indicated as usable open space. What's that envisioned? So I will admit we're tight on it, so I had to get a little clever on what I did for usable open space. I eliminated, I believe, two parking spaces there, and I just envisioned people working at the restaurant, taking stuff out to the garbage. They'll have their smoke break there. There'll be maybe people walk a dog, have it relieve itself there. I'm not sure. It's a big enough area where they could put a table there. I mean, it's a big enough area where it is usable. And one last question. And this might be more aptly directed at staff, But when I look at the sidewalk that runs east to west across the south end of the site there, that's already an existing condition, really. And when you look at the existing situation there, there's already a crosswalk. There's already a sidewalk there. so I'm really wondering why are we not developing a sidewalk on Richmond Road here what what gives us the I mean every other project we're looking at it's regardless of whether there's an existing sidewalk next to it we're putting one in because the idea is that in the future it will continue and every time I drive down Richmond Road or ride my bike down Richmond Road and take my life into my own hands. I'm frustrated by the fact that it's so unfriendly to pedestrians. So what allows us to not develop a sidewalk on Richmond Road there? Well, in this instance, one, I'm pretty sure it's a state road. It's controlled by the state. The state, without curb and gutter, they don't like sidewalks. Without curb and gutter, the only way to do a sidewalk would be to put it on the other side of the ditch. And on the other side of the ditch here is an extreme elevation change. I suppose you could build a retaining wall, a new one, the length of the property, and build a sidewalk up there, but then you wouldn't have any room for landscaping. I just think where we show it, it's not ideal, but it's really the best we can do given what we're dealt with on this project. I think to put sidewalks on Ridgeman Road is going to take a lot of effort from the state and the city too. and it needs to happen and for me I'm just inflexible on that I don't think what you're proposing there does anything to him to improve pedestrian viable pedestrian motion down Richmond Road no one's gonna walk up there and walk down that walk particularly because it doesn't continue through the rest of the development. That's my opinion. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Carter. Yeah. For the neighbors, do you have one person that would like to step up and add any additional information or comments? It's not additional. It's just to emphasize something very briefly. When Jack mentioned the kinds of frequency of traffic that we would get there with this development, he cited from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. And that publication was recommended to us by the planning staff here. And we were also advised on how to interpret that interpretation that we received from that publication. Thank you. Staff? You want to add anything? Okay. Yes, Ms. Wirth. We have anything from traffic engineering about this? I thought I might be brought up here. I've taken a few notes during this testimony and I won't debate the facts that both parties have cited because they're both accurate. I've sat back there and visited the KYTC site that the crashes were brought up and came up with 56 crashes. hit about in the middle of where both parties um cited uh my dates were from 2012 to 2020 just before covid i will keep in mind though it was a very high crash area and that but there was a transportation cabinet improvement project done at this location and the prior intersection there used to be blind spot left turns they since done an offset left turn there's restricted is no longer permitted during the day so you don't get the flashing yellow arrow during the day so we have seen a reduction in the crashes unfortunately during that same time period the restaurant closed so really there's a lot of factors that go into these the data that can can sway we do have a we don't have a concern about this site handling a drive-through restaurant and a drive-through bank the one discussion that Dave filiatra and I had was if what if this went in and the bank went out of business and we had two restaurants with drive-throughs that might generate some concern for traffic engineering because as the testimony has conveyed restaurants do address a drive-through restaurants do generate more drive-through traffic than a bank So we had debated whether to discuss adding a note to the development plan about restricting this site to one restaurant drive-through per the site just in case the bank went out of business. We've got a bank right now that is going out of business, and a Dunkin' Donuts with a drive-through is opening in it. So it is a possibility, and it's something that we would have some concerns about if this was two restaurant drive-throughs. The improvement plan has reduced crashes. So I've looked at the left-turn crashes, and it has definitely been an effective project the Transportation Cabinet did. Some of the discussions about pedestrian improvements. The developer does have the option to make street light improvements through traffic engineering. They pay for it. And we would upgrade the street lighting to LED, and that has been done by other developers. There's opportunity for street tree installations along Coburn and St. Margaret that would help with traffic calming. bulb outs. We would probably not, the speed hump was suggested and I don't, that would probably not be recommended or supported, but we've recently had some on a high street installed right at Rupp Arena. So it's a possibility. The developers on past projects have committed funds to traffic engineering that have a time limit, and they say we will allocate X number of dollars for a five-year period. And it gives traffic engineering some options to address traffic calming because it's very difficult to anticipate what the public's going to do when they're driving and where the problems will exist and occur so I don't have a crystal ball to tell you that it won't have an impact based on the ITE manuals the numbers are reasonable the developers traffic study has indicated everything that's very reasonable so i don't know that um being a b1 zone it's properly designed and allocated to address the sidewalk on richmond road the fire station across the kind of diagonally across the road was recently built by the lexifay urban county government transportation cabinet would not support sidewalks along that frontage so I don't know that they would support sidewalk at this time on this frontage either mr. Carter is correct they are looking for more for a redesign similar to from New Circle Road out to man-of-war being that kind of improvement plan before they would probably support sidewalks along this corridor I can't again I can't predict but I can provide a case history in the most recent area in an improvement plan that was as we'd traffic engineering we were asking for sidewalks and we thought it was set a precedence as an example for our own project that this city was building but But the transportation can't turn those sidewalk improvements down. If I can address any other questions, I'll be glad to. Yes, Mr. Nichol. That seems illogical. So you're saying that the state does not think that sidewalk improvements are necessary in that section of Richmond Road? Because I know we have a complicated situation that they have worked to address. I think in a segmented, I think they would support them if the roadway design, again, as Mr. Kerr elaborated, without curb and gutter and only being able to build across the property frontage. If this was something that someone came in and donated $10 million and said, I'm going to build a sidewalk from St. Margaret to New Circle, the transportation cabinet would probably say, sure. Of course. But. I don't think that that's necessary for a private developer to consider anything like that. I think being a segmented property is what was unsupported at that time because there is not curb and gutter. Okay. No protection for the pedestrian or bicyclist. That's unfortunate, but I do think they've made a good effort to provide access to the neighbors across the street. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so we'll bring it back to the commission. Let's see if there's additional conversations. If not, we'll close this portion out. But, Mr. Wilson, I see you. Yeah, I've got clarification from staff. One of the recommendations was made by the traffic gentleman is that if that bank went out of business, that they would have some major concerns about two restaurants being in that. If a motion were made to approve, is there a way that we can put a condition on that that that would be the case? Is that yes? Verbal confirmation? Let the record show that he's beginning to notice. What's interesting about the situation is that a fast food restaurant's a principal business and could come in. If it didn't make any changes to the plan, it could just occupy the bank building. So I think we would want to note that specifies that a change in use to the bank building to a fast food restaurant would require a development plan review by the planning commission. Might be the best way to do it. Okay, that would. Yeah, Mr. Wilson, at that point then the commission can reevaluate the traffic situation with whatever new use might be proposed. Okay, that sounds reasonable, thank you. Yes, Ms. Pohl. Question for staff. I'm assuming the only real difference between this proposal and the proposal that we reviewed on Winchester Road and Virginia Avenue, which was a drive-through coffee shop, I believe, that was rejected because it was essentially because it didn't encourage any kind of pedestrian activity. It was strictly encouraging automotive activity. presumably the only difference between this and that would be that there is seating inside the restaurant is am I correct on that this this isn't a restaurant as opposed to a coffee shop so it does provide for multiple ways to you know eat both indoor outdoor in terms of the patio and then pick up through the drive-through but if it didn't have indoor seating it would receive the same staff response as the coffee shop am i right well in addition here we the other location didn't have really a service road or separation from the arterial roadway and so there was concern about the stacking of the drive-throughs directly into arterial roadways in this situation you do have a service kind of a service road access easement that creates a an area for stacking on their property thank you okay mr. nickel I'll just wait until we bring it back to him okay that's fine Okay, then, the floor is open for a motion. If there is no more discussion, I'm willing to make a motion. But if we would like to discuss more, I'm willing to do so as well. Make the motion. All right. I would like to make a motion for approval of PLNMJDP 24-11, looking at the staff's revised recommendations for approval. There are 13 conditions. that I would like to leave as the staff had recommended to achieve their approval recommendation. Excuse, does that motion include the additional items that the property developers had said that they would consider, such as the improved flora and fauna and looking at some other things with this property that were not listed here. I think that these are the conditions that I'm willing to recommend and I do not recommending adding any additional notes to the development plan. Thank you. All right, okay. Any more discussion? So we got a motion, do we have a second? Just another question. Let me ask you this, the condition that we were talking about, at least I was proposing, does that need to be in the motion or can that be, it does need to be in the motion? Let me just ask the motion maker, would that be something you'd consider? I'm not interested in adding any notes as a practice. Okay. Well, okay, that's fair enough. I just wanted to know where you stood. All right. Okay. Still need a second. Somebody touching anything? Okay, so we do not have a second at the moment. All right, so Mr. Wilson, that motion dies. It does. The motion dies, so we'll open it back up for the motion again. Mr. Nickel. If you would like me to, Mr. Wilson, I can make the recommendation as previously stated, but adding your consideration for if the bank is no longer a bank, that the development plan that we're looking at now returns to the planning commission for consideration. Is that the way that you would like to have that stated? And if so, I would add that. That's fair. Second that. Okay. So we have a motion by Mr. Nickel with the additional information added and a second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? If I may, I think the I'm in favor of that is just the fact that I believe the use would need to be specified in that. If the use changes then it should come back. I think that's correct because if this bank ceases to exist and another bank comes in they would really need to come back to you but if the bank use ceases to exist and the use changes then the development plan would come back to you that's a good modification i would like to include that in my modification using your language please okay and the motion the second still stands by mr davis jonathan davis shaking his head I want you to stand on it. Second. Okay, thank you. All right. Just to clarify, a change of use on either property, either parcel. Is it the bank property? The bank property. Bank property. Okay. Would trigger development plan review by the Planning Commission. Right. Exactly. Thank you. Okay. I think we're okay now. Any misworth that you're looking like? I have a comment, but I can wait till I have to revoid if you want me to. Oh no, you have it. I'm going to vote no to this proposal. If I were going to vote yes, it would be because of the conditions you've added. I voted no when we talked about putting a restaurant on Clay's Mill close to the elementary school. I think any addition of business close to a school where you've got kids walking back and forth is a bad idea. So I'm going to vote no. Thank you, Ms. Worth, for your comments. Okay, we can now vote via Granicus. We got Mr. Davis? Okay. All righty, so that motion passes. Thank you for your time, and have a good afternoon. So that'll put us on page 7, PLNMJDP 24-21. Thank you. I don't know why they objected to it. This was on the approval. There we go. No. Can you go ahead? Let's hope we get it. Whoops. Come too far. Can we flip flop things? Well, without objection he could. Wait a minute, then we're past it. Yeah. Huh? Do you want me to get it? Yes. Here we go. Sorry about that. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, before we begin. Let's go. Do any other commissioners have issues? I can't access the documents. Are there any for this application? It was not loaded in DeGranicus because it was on the consent agenda. So the visual is what we have. Right, no, I understand that, but now we're going to have a hearing and we're going to be expected to make a decision and we can't review. We have to squint? I mean, that's less than ideal. We didn't plan on this being removed from the- Well, no, of course not, but anything can be removed from the consent agenda at any meeting. So it's better to be prepared, but okay, thank you. Okay. This is the Ramsey Sullivan property. We are heading out Georgetown Road to Kearney Ridge. The Spur Road is down here. I-75, 64 is up in this area. We just saw this area actually not too long ago. We had the C-Store that came in in this location that we had just reviewed. Down here we have an apartment complex. already and now they're wanting to revise with new property here. They're coming in with two new apartment buildings on this property. We have an access point right here coming into it, which then circles around to get access for these apartments, which then will lead the access point over here into where the C-Store was that we reviewed a month or so ago. So with that, as you can see, there's a total of 24, I think it's 24 units in this one here, and then I believe 15 in the other up here. with that when it went to the subdivision committee they had recommended approval, we had the conditions listed here, 1 through 11 which are typical sign offs, then we had a number of cleanup conditions, small things such as addition of address, title block, bearings and distances topography information. This is also located within the Royal Springs Aquifer. So this will have to go in front of the Royal Springs Aquifer for their review. If anything is commented, they will have to make notes on the plan for this. they also this is um at this current time this portion here is located on the same piece of property as the previous apartment complex so this property is all one piece of property here. With that, they need to subdivide the property so that we do not have to, because if they don't subdivide it, then they'll have multiple structures and we'll have to review it as a, I just went totally blank. What? Group residential. I just went, as group residential. So we've asked one of the conditions is that they subdivide this property so that they can create the two lots. This corner lot up here is already one lot, but then this way we subdivide this off, and you'll have one structure on the piece of property. Resolve compliance with Article 20, which is our open space. Like I said, it's just a lot of little cleanup information. So I'll just leave it with you all to see if there's any other comments or questions with it. Sure. Oh, no, I called on you. No, no, I called on you. I saw you. Condition 18, resolve compliance with Article 20 of the zoning ordinance. Have they done that? No. No. We knew they were going to have to, before this can be met, they will have to work and show us how they can meet Article 20 for open space. They haven't shown us yet. We haven't seen anything. That's why it's one of the conditions. Also, the work with green space on that. Okay. Okay, I think there's not any more questions. Thank you. Applicant? Is the applicant there? Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Johan Graham. I'm the AU Associates. We're the applicant on Site 3 here on 2750 Meadows Suite Lane. we were in last month for a one month postponement and since that time have worked with our site for neighbor the Barlow's to kind of create a better site design that serves both of our properties that has some shared parking and shared dumpster facilities that are insular to the site so we can activate the street better and have both buildings set up near Kearney Ridge Boulevard and then back further so we can increase the density for site for but maintain the parking requirements. So I think that's, that's it. We appreciate it. Okay. Thank you. Uh, is there any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you sir. Uh, citizen. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Owens. I'm sorry. Where are we? We prepared a color open space exhibit. I thought we were good and done, but we'll work with the staff to prove whatever needs proved. We thought we'd done that. If it's a better way of communicating that, Mr. Owens will get that added to the plan. so you're saying you thought you've done that no it's turned in it's uploaded on the cell a color open space exhibit but you know if that didn't meet what the staff requires we'll give them whatever they need to meet that requirement just to clarify when the subdivision committee recommends approval often applicants don't submit a new plan if there are no conditions to be resolved or discussed and so there may have been discussion with the senior planner responsible for open space to resolve that but it wasn't necessarily submitted to planning services to present today he wasn't there you weren't there Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. There's no further questions for the applicant. You can take a seat. Thank you. Sir? Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Chairman and Planning Commission. My name is Leslie Howard. I live in the Kearney Hall subdivision properties. I'm sort of not really representing the entire neighborhood, but sort of I am because I'm the only one to come. What I wanted to do was just let you know, and which you're probably all aware of, that that unit being sort of landlocked is right now currently only has one way in and out. And I know there's some effort to get us a second entrance. They're working on it. But we've been hearing that for years and don't know how many more years that will pass before we get another one. We already have approved over 800 apartment units in our subdivision. I don't know what the ratio is to apartments versus single-family homes, but it's gotten a little out of hand. The traffic is just getting horrendous, and that's with over half of those not even started to build yet. So the traffic is just, I can't imagine that anybody's looked at the actual traffic pattern without a number of apartments coming out, even two entrances. It's going to be ridiculous. So to take these two plots of land, one of them which is really available and the other one's part of the Oasis Senior Living Apartments, and to join them up and build more apartments, nobody in the subdivision has raised any kind of, oh, that sounds like a good idea. Yeah. So we're here. Basically, I'm here to say that, you know, the apartment, our subdivision has been taking a lot of hits and we're starting to get to the point where there's a lot of people are starting to put their houses up for sale to move out. They just can't handle the amount of traffic and other things that go along with it, as most of these apartments are not your normal upscale apartment. pretty much either low income or subsidized type apartment buildings we would really like to see some development done to potentially put in some kind of park in those at least the one small area that's available maybe even the combination of the two if we could get the owners to somehow do that and i've been in discussion with our council lady shayla lynch to potentially take some steps to get us going there but we didn't really realize this was going to happen until two weeks ago so all of a sudden we got the i'd information that had already been approved by the subdivision committee and this was our last chance to get a get a word in so even though i know the city is making steps to make things like this more accessible to residents to know what's going on we have not been and I'm fairly computer savvy and I have a really difficult time navigating schedules and on the city's websites how to get to things I mean it took me forever just to find this one and it was listed under a different address but when you went to that different address and there was another little link that took you to the address I was looking for which was a lot on the corner so it wasn't easy to find so I don't understand or I don't fault others in the subdivision for not understanding how to get this information so since it's been such a short period of time since we found out about it and we would like the opportunity to have a little bit more time to potentially try to get some of some other something else to happen besides more apartments. And so that's where I stand. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Howard. Is there any questions for the citizens? Thank you, sir. Mr. Graham, do you want to make any additional comments? Are you good with where you are? I think the only thing to follow up with is, yes, we all would encourage a traffic light to be placed at the corner of Kearney Ridge Boulevard and Georgetown Road, but until the metrics are meant for the traffic count or Coldstream Park is developed across the street, we've just been generally unsuccessful in getting that traffic light placed by the state since it's a state road. But we obviously would encourage that to be done there. Our site, we are the owners of the Oasis at Kearney Creek as well, so we are subdividing our property to build 24 more affordable housing units that are financed by lfucg's office of affordable housing so that's the use on our 24 unit site okay thank you mr grant mr howard do Do you have anything additional? Okay. There's a part of our subdivision, there's a number of homeowners associations. There's a regular homeowners association that includes most of the homes on Kearney Creek Lane, as well as some of the others. There's one for the townhomes that run along Kearney Hall and along the Meadow Suite, which are across the street from this proposed development. And those homeowners associations, at least the one that I'm a part of on Kearney Creek Lane, has part of our fees, takes care of the entrance. and all the sprinklers for the green space in between the islands, if you will, and the trees, and the lighting at the end, the landscaping, some of the insurance and things, they're all paid for from our homeowners association. None of these other apartments are members of that homeowners association. The new filling station and restaurant that's already been approved to go at the end of Kearney Hall and Georgetown Road. As far as I know, there's nothing that says that they have to participate. Now we've got two more apartment building, little apartment complex, and there's nothing that says they've got to participate. Again, we have another little area that the homeowners that were originally there are paying for all the infrastructure that's in place at the entrance. All the landscaping, etc. We'd like to see that as a restriction or something to add it to this new proposal that they participate in taking care of that entrance. Thank you, sir. Staff, do you have anything additional to add? I don't believe the Planning Commission can require that type of partnership for the landscaping. I think that's really up to the private property owners to work out with the HOA and the new apartment owners. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Ms. Wade? Ms. Meyer? I know that we, the staff works very hard to, connectivity is important and, you know, being able to move through and have multiple entrances and exits. And so this is surprising to me to hear that. I know it's been a problem in the past and that we're all very conscious of it. So could the staff, someone speak to that issue? I'll be happy. If I might refresh your memory, do you recall just recently the development plan on Spur Road for the John Deere facility? So the connection into that subdivision is part of that development. And I believe the plans have been submitted and there's bonds that have been submitted to ensure that construction of that second connection. And again, the S-curve is part of that. But there's a connection into the subdivision. And furthermore, there's an approved plan, certified approved plan for apartments in the rear of the development, back next to the railroad and the interstate that has been approved and certified. Those are market apartments. Those are not subsidized in any way. Those are market apartments. Furthermore, the number of units that they're allowed to build back there is connected to the completion of that street connection. So those pieces are moving now and are underway and going to happen. And to add to that, Mr. Barlow's here as well, and they're responsible for the construction of that road, and it is underway. Yes, I'm Michael Barlow with Commonwealth Designs. We're working with John Deere, but we have plans approved to do the spur road improvements and make the Sullivan's Trace Connection, which will take them to Greendale. We expect to have that complete by the end of the year, barring setbacks in construction, but that is the current goal. Thank you, Mr. Barlow. We bring this back to the commission for additional comments, questions. If there aren't any, then the floor is open. Mr. Nickel? I'm sorry, I thought I was going to. I don't want to. Well, let's see if I can do it right this time. Mr. Wilson, I would like to recommend approval of PLNM JDP 24-21, Ramsey Sullivan Property Unit 3, noting the subcommittee's recommendation of approval and the 26 conditions. Okay, do we have a second? Second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Mr. Wilson. Just one. I would agree with my colleague over here to the right. When I look down and see 26 conditions, that makes me a little nervous. So I would say I don't know how that worked out to be 26, but be that as it may, that causes me pause for cause. But anyhow, that's all I wanted to say. If I may, I'll follow up with that. And if I was in subdivision that day, I definitely apologize for letting this slip past. Anytime there's more conditions, clean up conditions, than there are sign offs, it really causes me heartburn. I cannot vote for this in that reason. I may abstain, I may vote disapproval, but I cannot vote for it with these 26 conditions. Okay. Oh, come on. Okay. I call up with a question, Mr. Chair. That means in debate. I'm ready to. I have a comment, but I'm not going to say anything. Okay, then. Chair. No, no, I'll just hold it for later. Floor is open for a motion. Motion has been made. I'm excusing me for a vote for Granicus. We got John, Mr. Jonathan, Ms. Ag's out, Ms. Worth. Where's the Zach? Okay. So Mr. Davis went out, so he took a call, so motion passes. Okay. Okay. Let's take maybe a five-minute recess, if we could. Let everyone get some water, use the restroom. And we'll be back in here at 345. Okay, I'm two minutes behind my allocated time. I know. I'm waiting on Mr. Wilson left. Mr. Davis, I did not see him, but his keys are here, so he can't go too far. There we go. Now we're good to go. Now we got a call. So I'm told we have a new staff member, Ms. Haley Wade here. How are you, Ms. Wade? Hey, I live close by you now. I know where to find you. Yeah. Well, good to have you. I'm glad you finished your test. and your mama put you on punishment to come here. It's not good. She walked, she walked. Well. Are we ready? We are ready. So we're on page 9, PLMJDP 24-26. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are on page 9. It is item I, Major Development Plan 24-26, the Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association property. We have, over the last few years, spent a considerable amount of time, as you all are aware, with this property. This is the Fountains at Palomar. We are at the corner of Manowar and Harrodsburg Road. As you all recall, you have a main entrance here off of Harrodsburg Road. There's a write in, write out off Manowar with a access easement that leads through the property that was a subject to much discussion during the evolution of this plan from its original plan, as you all are well aware. This is the public's. It's going in right here. The purpose of this amendment is just one thing. Let's see. No. We don't have a. Click forward. There we go. There we go. So the public's operational people decided that they needed a dumpster for their liquor store. So an access you can see with the sidewalk and the sidewalk out through there and there's a door into the liquor store. That's the sole purpose amendment. Doesn't affect any other part of the plan. They are adding a dumpster for the liquor store. Well, they had to add access to that dumpster. And you can see through here and then through here. So they've got nice, clean access to that dumpster. The plan has just, again, it's only a major amendment because under our ordinance, they're reducing open space. And you can't reduce open space on a minor amendment because the Planning Commission has approved that open space. So we had to bring it back to you as a major amendment. So that's why you're seeing it today. and with that we have our standard sign-offs on the plan. One is to add a new note that building inspection now requires on all plans and they need to add that because this plan is older and they've not added that as yet. They need to change the date as it says on a planning commission certification. It's an older date from a previous approval. And then to note the width of the access dumpster And we have resolved, we believe, the service access note limitations for Area 8. It's kind of interesting. And that is this area on the original plan has a whole series of notes that was generated by the applicant, his engineer in the neighborhood. And that addressed that larger big box proposal that had a little bit different alignment on the original plan. It changed when Publix came in. But the notes remain on this area of the plan. And so because they were adding this service feature to the plan, we had that condition to resolve that. Well, condition number 11 says submit letter of support from the Palomar Neighborhood Association. They forwarded an email the other day. I believe it might have been yesterday, as a fact, from the president of that neighborhood association saying we have no problem with this amendment. So that helps address that issue with how that area was looked at originally because of the relationship again with the neighborhood. And as you can see, there's a privacy fence and a lot of landscaping. Lighting and things like that have been addressed previously. So with that, your subdubating committee had recommended approval of this plan. Staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Do we have any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Meyer? Tom, so does number 10 resolve service? I remember discussing this in the committee. And so does, now that you have the letter from the neighborhood association, does that take care of resolving number 10? We think so, yes ma'am. Because originally there was going to be a lot of traffic in that area potentially from service vehicles, etc. And this is a dumpster, I mean it has to be serviced. And the note was something they originated. So staff wanted to be sure that the parties were happy. Any other questions? Okay, not seeing any. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Advocate? Good afternoon, again. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. We're in agreement with the conditions. Would like to ask, if we can, remove Condition 10 and 11 now that we have provided the email to staff from the Homeowners Association. With that, I'd ask for your approval. Oh, yeah, I was pulled so Mr. Carney could talk. Do you need to talk or did you all work it out? I was going to talk about it. Okay. Okay. Hey, Mr. Carter, you can come up here, man. I'm fine. I can go home. I turned it back over to you. I was fine with it, man. I had my keys ready. Okay. Jay, I guess we don't have any questions for the applicant at the moment. And this is citizen's moment to speak on this application. Sir, you can do so by stepping up to the podium. Good afternoon. My name is Jay Connie. I live at 2032 Glade Lane and I registered as I came in the door with my name and address and phone number and all that stuff so you have it. I didn't know Robbie, the president of our association, had sent that letter. House, I've been authorized to speak for the association, as well as the Glades neighborhood, which is the smaller part that's adjacent to the development. And we've worked well with the Webbs and the Greers over the years, four years now or more. I just wanted to speak, you know, I'm in favor of this. The dumpster has to be put someplace. Every business needs a dumpster that's going to be dealing with that kind of material. And I don't think putting it behind somebody else's house would be better than putting it behind our house. I'm just over a little bit to the left here in this picture, picking my neighbors sort of right there. It's going to affect her more. But I wanted to specifically make sure that one of the agreements, it doesn't appear in this blow-up, but the wall between that beautiful row of Arborvita that they put in, a double row, and the new road that's going to go in. We were concerned about the sound, and there was an agreement to put in a masonry wall. So the notes on this particular plan that I pulled down from the city site, it shows, it just says a sound attenuating wall. But the drawing there has the posts and the boards indicated, just looking at it as an engineer. So I just wanted to make sure that that commitment was made. So I've been talking to them, and we're going to be able to just talk about it privately. So I'm in favor, and thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Connelly. Is there anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Hello, I'm Vicki Stevens. I live at 2020 Glade Lane. And I can't tell you how annoyed I am that our homeowners association just supports this so wholeheartedly. I too have a concern about the fence slash wall that has been assured publicly more than once uh... that should at go in behind between that district and the trees uh... and we've inquired previously exact about what sort of material this is going to be made with and we're kind of blown off about that well will have to it investigate that and get back to you. So I just want affirmation that it will be a sound buffering wall of eight feet in height minimum. And I thought this would be the perfect venue for making that request and having it being on the record. I have a couple of other concerns concerns as well about that need to, I didn't realize when all this discussion was originally made about six years ago, started six years ago, that we would need clarification about whose responsibility it is to maintain The area between the homeowner's property and the trees and now the fence, it kind of seems to be a multiple person responsibility, the homeowners and the developers. So I'm okay with that as long as I have someone owning up to be responsible for it for certain and someone I can call if maintenance has fallen in the cracks and needs to be upgraded. There are some storm damaged trees along there, I think, and I've brought that to various people's attention before and nothing has happened. I don't understand why you don't want to take care of the trees that you spend a lot of money on, but that's just my perspective. And also, I'd like clarification about who, there was a big discussion originally about this little pony wall, so to speak, being built at the end of Glade Lane. So there would never be through traffic into our very narrow streets on Glade from the development. And so that is another area, the maintenance, the cleaning up, the mowing, the weed eating. It has been mishandled, in my opinion. It's been overlooked. We've complained about it. And we've heard that, oh, am I on a clock? That, oh, it's the neighborhood's responsibility. Oh, it's the homeowner's responsibility. Oh, it's the city's responsibility. And we really don't know. We'd like for it to be the developer's responsibility since that's been presented as one of the pluses in this development. So just summarizing, assurance of the sound muffling, buffling, whatever, wall materials, and also the maintenance of the space between the homes and the development, And also at Glide Lane in a contact person just in case it's overlooked again. And that's all I have. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Want to add something? Yes, sir. Jay Connie again. Just wanted to add to what Vicki's saying. I met Kyle Champion for the first time today. and we haven't had a point of contact and that's been a problem where we're used to. I mean Bruce Simpson was great but he's retired now. Great guy. But I think we're going to work it all out. As far as the wall, that is the developer's responsibility. I'm quite sure and we're going to work on that and get it specified. And he said you know if we agree to a masonry wall we'll do it. So So I'll make sure that happens. As far as the end of, Vic was talking about the end of Glade Lane. I think you mean Glade Court, which is that little stub street. The little walls there, there's some issues there. And I've had the, or let me just say in general, Hillemeier is the landscape company that the Greers have hired to maintain the property there at the fountains and mow the weeds and all that stuff. And I've on occasion spoken to their lead people, and they've just taken care of stuff. They've also come into, you know, behind my house, and they are mowing back there, and they're doing what they can. Some of the owners have built fences back into that space, which they're allowed to do with our agreement with the developers. So they're maintaining it in some of those spaces. So all that should just be discussed. But they are making a good effort, and even the hydrangeas were not being deadheaded. Just spoke to Kyle and said, oh, yeah, got to deadhead him. So that will be on Helen Meyer's list, to-do list of stuff. But generally when we've raised stuff, once we have a point of contact, things get done appropriately. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Carter? A couple of things. The sound wall material, I'm not sure what that is going to be yet. the site is just now under construction and some things get designed as the project goes. At a minimum, it'll be concrete masonry block wall, but I can't tell you the materials, but it will be what it's intended to be on the plans. maintenance of the green space. The joining properties don't have any responsibilities on this property. They don't maintain, they're not required to maintain anything between the property lines. The web company's property management is the contact, and we can put a note on the or a phone number and that name as a contact on the development plan. And as far as Glade Lane, the site's under construction now, so if there's something that's due to be constructed that's not, I mean, we're just now getting started. So give us some time and we'll get it done. That's all I've got. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter? Yes. Is that an eight-foot wall? It's an eight-foot. That's the highest we're allowed to go. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Staff, no anything additional? Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, any further comments, questions? If not, the floor is open. Ms. Mayer? Mr. Chair, I'd like to move for approval of PLN, MJDP 2426, Hoover and Ford-Philpot Evangelistic Association property. We're in removing condition 10 and 11, so leaving nine conditions. Okay, thank you. All right. And we have a second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussions to that motion? Please vote via granicus. Okay. All right, that motion passes unanimously. It leads us to our last item for the day. All right, that motion passes unanimously. It leads us to our last item for the day. I got two more minutes. Phase 13, PLN, Zota 24-2. Staff? Good afternoon, Chairman Forster, members of the commission. I do think we have one more item after this, so. Sorry, be the bear of bad news. That's why Mr. Murphy's been hanging around. But for page 13, CA, this is PLN ZODA 24-2, and it is the regulation of medicinal cannabis businesses in terms of land use. So just as a refresher, where we have started, the state passed a state law in 2023, so last summer, and to allow for medical cannabis to be used within the state of Kentucky. Those regulations are KRS 218B, and in essence, that provided the definition, all the definitions related to regulation of medical cannabis. It created five business types and established really the framework for further regulation. So the state developed these state KRS regulations and then came back this year, this calendar year, and developed additional administrative regulations that are, I would say, about six times as deep. as deep. So this regulation that passed last year allows for local governments to regulate land use as well as business licenses for the use and it specifically says we're able to enact ordinances to not conflict with KRS 218B or the cabinet's administrative regulations but we can as a local government regulate the time, place and manner of cannabis business operations, it does also say that we are not to make or impose an undue burden on these operations. And that became passed last year and was to be effective for the January 1st, 2025 date. This session of the Kentucky General Assembly resulted in the adoption of House bill 829 and there were a few minor changes proposed with the KRS 218B but the one that affected our regulation of land use the most is modifying the effective date of the statute to July 1st 2024 that allows for the businesses to get their licenses from the state and be up and operational prior to the January 1st, 2025 date where they can actually distribute medical cannabis. So as a reference here, this is a table from the state's document related to the business licenses. So their initial window for allowing for applications for these business licenses does begin July 1st and they're only open for two months for the license applications then they'll go through a lottery process to award the license licenses according to this initial license table so there are again in the definitions we'll go through that quickly in a minute four different tiers of cultivators processors, producers, dispensaries, and then safety compliance facilities. So for their initial release of licenses, the state is going to issue a total of 16 licenses across the state for cultivators, 10 licenses for processors, zero producers to begin with, and then 48 dispensaries, and then no limit on safety compliance facilities. So that gives you some context as to what the proposed statewide use will be, and then you can infer what maybe would happen in Fayette County as well. For dispensaries, as I showed you on that table, that had the highest number, 48, to be permitted across the state. the approach the state is taking is to distribute dispensaries across the state so that they are accessible to all populations and there's not a long drive distance to get to a dispensary. So Fayette County falls in region one, which is in the center there, in the kind of light teal color. It is a 13-county region, and the state will issue, I believe, four plus two. So a total of six dispensary licenses to the Bluegrass region, as well as six to Louisville's region. That allows for two dispensaries to be located in Fayette County, and then the other four to be located in the other counties based on population. So that's kind of our background information. In terms of Fayette County regulating this particular use, we need to add definitions to the zoning ordinance. So those definitions in your draft text include what is medicinal cannabis, what's a cannabis business, and so that breaks down those five businesses. Cultivator, these are just alphabetical. Dispensary, processor, producer and then a safety compliance facility in addition in our ordinance we wanted to also define medical cannabis product cardholder and then make an amendment to the commercial greenhouse definition and that was just a clarification that cultivator is in fact different and more strictly regulated by the state than a your typical commercial greenhouse so to provide some clarity for everyone cultivator that's usually or generally the first stage of the product being developed it's the growing cultivating harvesting and then allowing for transport of that to another step or amongst different cultivators so the state created a four-tier approach for this tier one allows for an indoor growing area of up to 2500 square feet tier two allows for up to 10 000 square feet tier three 25 000 square feet and then tier four cultivator has is the maximum and that's an indoor grow area of 50 000 square feet so again initial licensing will only include tiers one through three and i will just note that the regulations that the state has put out administrative regulations do go into a lot more detail about how the cultivators have to operate and that includes not information about how to measure the indoor grow area and so just so you're aware they can go vertical with grow areas so they would build shelves for the growing as opposed to necessarily having it all one spread out facility so the next kind of stage in the process is processing of the medical cannabis so that's taking the raw materials and making them into a product to be used by a registered cardholder and that includes in the ordinances processing manipulating blending I think it says manufacturing as well packaging and then ultimately transport a producer is the combination of a cultivator and a processor so they're growing it and and they're able to process it to the final packaging. And again, so that's the combination of those uses, growing to all the way to the packaging and transporting. And then the dispensary is really the public side of it, the third stage where you're distributing the cannabis product directly to cardholders. And a cardholder is really something that's registered with the state, so they become a registered cardholder, and they've been given a written, it's not really a prescription, a written certification from a care professional. And then the last one item mentioned here, it's not really in a stage necessarily, but it's generally a support business for the other four businesses. So they're doing testing of the products within the state, creating educational materials, and also training cardholders and business agents. And again, the safety compliance facilities are not limited by the state in terms of number, and they do have the ability to be in several locations, and then in Fayette County as well. So the regulatory approach the staff put forward to the commission was to regulate the land use, of course, by zone. so in agricultural zones depending on the growth area making a cultivator accessory for tier one and two which would allow to 10 000 square feet that is consistent with our 10 000 square foot limit on other non-agricultural land uses and then making it conditional beyond that so anything above 10 000 square feet of grow area would need to be a conditional use conditional uses as you know go to the board of adjustment for a public hearing there's mailed notice that's sent out and the the board can review a site plan for those for those things another reason that a conditional use might be necessary is if there's more employees or more traffic coming to a site that kind of triggers an additional review for the board to look at in terms of cultivators processors and producers the staff recommended those be allowed in industrial zones so that's going to be our I1 I2 and ED zones as well as allowing the safety compliance facility business zones suggesting that dispensaries be located within our business zones and then also some safety compliance facilities limited to professional office as well as B3 and before and then for residential zones obviously prohibiting any of the medical cannabis uses and then the division of revenue is working on a business license which involves proposed changes to the code of ordinances for a new special license for Fayette County. So in addition to some of the information we've already given you about what KRS 218B says it also provides some other kind of related land use items that hopefully will help you as a Commission understand some of the other regulations that really restrict where these uses can go so first any of the indoor growth areas have to be equipped with locks and other security devices that only permit access for the authorized agents of the business so nobody outside of those group of trained professionals structures have to be or may be larger than the indoor growth area so the 2,500 or 10,000 square feet we talked about is really just dedicated to the growing space in addition to that those structures would likely have office space storage space or other non cultivating activities can occur and then the last thing for any medical cannabis business dispensary all the way to cultivator they must be at least a minimum of a thousand feet from an elementary or secondary school and a day and or daycares within the county so we do have access to that information from our GIS to be able to ensure that the uses are not too close to the schools or daycares so again this was the staff recommendation coming to the subdivision the zoning committee last week, and you can see principal uses for the most part, for most of these uses. So cultivators, processors, producers, safety compliance, we're going to be allowed, all of those are going to be allowed in I-1, I-2, and ED with some extra safety compliance and some business zones. again the dispensaries focused on our business zones and the cultivators in the Ag zones split between accessory for the smaller ones and then conditional for the larger during the zoning committee discussion that we had last week there were considerations given to the Rural Land Management Board and their recommendation and concern I believe you have that today in front of you and And there was a suggestion that all cultivators, regardless of the indoor grow area, be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for conditional use. And all the agricultural zones to be treated equally across the board. That gives the board an opportunity to evaluate the location of the structure on the property, as well as provide for a public hearing. And then notice goes out to adjacent property owners up to a mile. So this reflects the zoning committee's recommendation, basically striking the accessory use language from the agricultural zones, and then instead of it listing as tier one, tier two, tier three, tier four, just referring to cultivators, so medicinal cannabis cultivators, those would be conditional uses in all of the agricultural zones. so that was the change suggested there the staff did present to the committee a staff alternative text which just involved clarifying that in every residential zone these businesses would be prohibited at this point the staff again is recommending approval the staff alternative and we're presenting to you the zoning committee recommendation as well for your consideration and I I believe you do have that text with you, the Zoning Committee text, or it might just be on Granicus. Oh, they have paper. We'll just say Zoning Committee recommended text May 2024, and each zone has its own page, so 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4. And that would just replace the Article 8 regulations for the agricultural uses, and then all of the other staff alternative texts would still be available for consideration today. At this point, I'm happy to answer any questions. The staff report does go into a little bit more information about the Rowland Management Board's recommendation or request, and then just note that the staff's recommending approval to ensure clear definition and regulation of the new medical cannabis businesses as proposed by the, or allowed by KRS 218B and the General Assembly. And that this text amendment will categorize the new agricultural and business uses in a consistent manner as other uses in the zoning ordinance. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Yep. Mr. Nickel. Yes, sir, thank you. Mrs. Wade, can you give me the language again that you referenced in the direction that was given to us on how to handle the definitions in the ZODA that you presented to us today? What I'm getting at is you said that there should be no undue hardship. Can you please state that? The Senate Bill 47, when it was adopted last year by the General Assembly, there is a section that talks about local governments being able to regulate these particular land uses. So there's several options. You can opt out completely. You can say these are going to be prohibited and do like a referendum. But in our case, in Fayette County's case, we felt it was something that was appropriate to be regulated here at this point. So if we're going to regulate the uses, we can do so by regulating time, place, and manner. But we have to ensure that we're not imposing an undue burden to make cannabis business operations unreasonable or impractical. Okay, so with that language, my question to you would be, as I'm looking at this staff alternative text May 1, 2024, if there are any other conditions made to this document, do you believe that will impose an undue burden or make cannabis business operations unreasonable or impractical? No, not necessarily. No, not necessarily. I think it depends on what the change would be. I'm referring to the recommended zoning committee's recommended text. When you read that document, do you believe that would place an undue burden or make cannabis business operations unreasonable or impractical? I have faith that the Board of Adjustment will consider those on a case-by-case basis and address any concerns as necessary. I don't have just an across-the-board concern about the board taking on those conditional uses. I don't think that's undue burden. Okay, but the staff is recommending the staff alternative tax for May 1, 2024. At this point, we didn't. Typically, the staff won't change our recommendation after we've put it out there. We just share with you what the zoning committee's decision was or recommendation was. but we don't typically adopt those changes as part of our recommendation. Okay, so what we're looking at is the staff recommendation is the approval of the staff alternative text, which is here. Okay, thank you. I think the same finding can be made, even if you plug in the zoning committee's text in this case. Okay, thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions? We have to propose that to be, there's two options, plus whatever we'd like to do. Right. Okay. Any other questions from Ms. Wade? Ms. Worth, you go ahead, Ms. Meyer? Okay, Ms. Meyer. I'm in favor of the conditional use across the board in the Ag Zones. And one of the things that I've been thinking about, knowing that we were going to be considering across the board conditional uses in the Ag Zone, is that if we don't put some, you know, it's that any size facility could go on any size track of land, conceivably. Is that, you know, I mean, that's my interpretation. And so, therefore, as a protection to the ag, the rural zones, I'm wondering if we as a board ought to consider some acreage limits on the tiers, on each tier. So, like the tier one is the, you know, it's the smallest. And the other is so maybe a 10-acre tract or something like that. But the other concerning thing for me is the fact that the structures can be larger than the growth area to include offices, maintenance, storage, et cetera. And so by putting an acreage minimum on each tier, there's some control or some management of the size of the building. You know, we don't want to, you know, you've got a 25,000 or a 10,000, you know, growing area, and then you add offices or whatever else is needed, then you're expanding the size of the building potentially. And so I'm just putting that out to our board members to see what the thought might be. Gentleman? Mr. Dick? Yes, Ms. Worth? It's really more of a clarification of what we've got in front of us on the staff alternative text. If I'm reading that correctly, in the AR zone, Tier 3 or Tier 4 could not be larger than 10,000, is that correct or am I misreading that? You're misreading that. The way our ordinance works is there's currently eight conditional uses that are not restricted to the 10,000. And number nine starts below that and is restricted to 10,000 square feet on the ground. So if we're plugging something in that's agricultural in nature, we want to ensure that it's above that 10,000 threshold so that it's coordinated with the other agricultural uses. So even a commercial greenhouse is not limited to 10,000. any of our agricultural related conditional uses don't have that 10 000 square foot limit they kick in for a recreational facility worship and you know religious assembly daycares some of those other rehab homes some of those other facilities that might be available or might be useful in the agricultural zones but we want to limit their impact so this is sort of sideways to your concern and i'm looking at the letter from um the um rural land management board management board and thinking about the soils in the the Ag zone and thinking about putting a 50,000 foot permanent structure in productive agricultural land as opposed to someplace else. And I'm not a farmer, so I guess part of what I'm asking is number one, I wasn't in the zoning committee, so I didn't hear that information. And I'm interested to hear what the zoning committee was thinking and I'm interested to hear what our representatives from the Ag community have to say about this, including what you're saying? So by making it a conditional use in the agricultural zone, that in and of itself will be somewhat of a deterrent to operators, right? If it's a principal use in our industrial I1, I2, ED zones, it's going to be easier to construct something in those zones as opposed to going to the board of adjustment and going through in an extra stage step that involves a public hearing. Two things. One, I do have a question for Tracy. Just to clarify, if we're talking about, as an example, tier one, 2,500 square feet, we've got four different tiers, but 2,500 square feet, is that just grow area? then they can have additional space for storage or offices or whatever and there's no limit? Yes. The grow area is what is regulated by the state in terms of a cultivator and so that grow area can either be on one level or they I think I mentioned it can be built on shelves so it can be stacked therefore reducing the square footage of a structure. But yes, any agricultural use would generally have space for these other things to happen. So whether it's tobacco or tomatoes or strawberries, you might have some sort of space where you are actually storing things like pesticides or tags for the plants so you know what type they are. Whatever that might be, you have space in that building for those things to happen too. Okay, but there's no limit? No limit. From the state and again, from our agricultural uses, we typically don't. But with the grow area, a 2,500 square foot building for grow area could be shelved to grow 7,500, 10,000 square feet. So the the way the ordinance, the regulations are written, the KAR regulations are written, your 2,500 square feet is counted on each shelf. So you might have a thousand here, and then a thousand here, and then 500 here, and that constitutes your total 2,500. So it's limited in that. Each row counts towards your cap. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. I've got other thoughts and so forth, but I know we've got, Mr. Chairman, there's a few people in the audience, I don't know if Mr. Murphy's here for this or not. But maybe we want to see if anybody else wants to speak before we get too far down the line. Hold on one second. Yeah, go ahead. I have one question just for my clarification. The HB 17 and KRS 218B does not allow for any outdoor cultivation of medical cannabis? That's correct. It all has to be indoor. All has to be indoor. So there is no provision for outdoor cultivation. None. It changes my thoughts on this. Can I add something about that? This is a medical product. You can't control quality if you're growing outdoors. Right. Yeah, first let's get the zoning committee comments. Judy, to your question, at the zoning committee, I recommended making this all conditional use in the ag zone just because, number one, the ag zone is so large and it's so diverse. and the stipulations within the statute on the security of the building and the type of building. It's not like a greenhouse like you would think of, even a commercial greenhouse. It has to be a very secure, very well-lit facility with a fence or, you know, it's tight. So it's not like other things that are permitted in the AR. and because again because the air is so large and so diverse the committee voted unanimously to make those conditional use yeah graham did i get that right all right all right so it does my my question got answered with the elimination of outdoor cultivation no i meant james oh sorry i thought you're pointing at me No, I mean, it's just, I've just put it out there for people to think about and, you know, we've got other people who would like to speak, so. Okay. Ms. Wade, I'm sure we'll be back with you. Ms. Rothenmeier. No, Ms. Murphy said he has nothing to say. Just us here. Commissioners, thank you all for your time and your attention on this afternoon. I know it's been a long meeting, so thank you all. Of course, Brittany Rothmeier with Fate Alliance. I think this has been a really interesting conversation as we consider where we're going to grow, where we're going to allow new types of uses in our zoning code. Fate Alliance has always said this. Hopefully you aren't tired of hearing it yet. But the question is never if we grow, it's always how. And so I think that that is especially applicable with the new introduction of medical cannabis and these new types of uses that we really are unsure on what the impacts might be on an area, especially like the agricultural area, should our community choose to regulate it. So as we continue to protect our most prime soils, our agricultural areas, which are so finite, we have always believed, and I know that you all do as well, that it's important to carefully analyze any expanded uses in these areas in particular. And again, I know that you all have heard this as well, but it always bears repeating that once we do destroy the top soil in our agricultural areas, we destroy their productivity, their potential for future agricultural production, and, of course, our identity as a community. As Commissioner Davis mentioned, the agricultural area is so diverse and so varied throughout it. It's very large. I think this certainly warrants extra attention as we think about how to do this, and, again, because this use, especially from a medical standpoint, is so unknown. So based on this analysis, Fade Alliance would recommend and support that cultivators, and specifically cultivators tier one through tier three should be a conditional use in all agricultural zones and not permitted as accessory uses. So there is that layer of extra protection as we evaluate these sensitive agricultural areas. And I hope that we wouldn't move forward with jeopardizing our productive soils before we know exactly how this use is going to impact these agricultural areas and how widespread it may in fact be. And I think there's also potential for adjustment in the future should we see this market and this use changing moving forward. In addition, Fatal Alliance would also suggest that the tier four size cultivators, not to exceed that indoor growth area of up to 50,000 square feet, should actually be prohibited in any of the agricultural zones. In trying to visualize 50,000 square feet for myself, I know that there is this discussion about the different, you know, horizontal versus vertical types of growth, but I was just trying to search for what 50,000 square feet looks like. If you all have ever been to Main Event on Nicholasville Road, that is 50,000 square feet. It's enormous. I just think that helps to put this into perspective, but I do think that that size of a cultivator is really an exception and should require different treatment, and so that tier four size facility would certainly be appropriate in an industrial zone, but I would venture to, we would certainly venture to recommend that that size of that tier four cultivator be prohibited in the agricultural zones and is just better suited to our industrial areas as otherwise outlined. So medical cannabis certainly presents an interesting opportunity for Fayette County, and we hope that, you know, if this industry does move forward that it can be an economic asset to our community but Fate Alliance just wants to ensure that we do regulate it carefully and appropriately in our most sensitive areas especially before we know how it will operate and impact our community. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you Mr. Rothenmeier. Okay. All right. I've got a lot of eyebrows raising over here. So, yeah, it's back to the commission for any, a lot of comments. Let me give a couple of thoughts here. Since Judy asked for it from an agricultural perspective, to begin with, I have no problem whatsoever with production of this. There's a lot of thought that's gone into this, much more than, I've got some, I don't know where they came from, Bill Wilson left them, but I mean there's 250 plus pages here that is talking about this. Size in the rural area is a concern for me. I like what Zoning Committee has offered as far as conditional use with all four tiers. As far as agriculture, agriculture has always worked on a production basis and built what was needed. I mean, tobacco barns in the day, you didn't build something to house 40 acres if you only had five acres. So it was built accordingly. a typical tobacco barn, average tobacco barn now, is somewhere between four and five thousand square feet. So that gives you something to go by. Frank Penn mentioned the fact that his largest barn ever was 75,000 square feet and that that would hold 40 acres tobacco. They raised a thousand, they raised a hundred acres of tobacco at one point in time. But size does matter. This is a product that's being raised above ground. It's going to be on a shelf. It's not going to be in our soil and so forth. The building's going to be sitting on the soil. That's what's going to take the soil away from us. CBD, if you think about CBD, that was a big go a few years back that proved to be a bust, is the fact that it got caught in a way over production type mode. The processors contracted with the growers and subsequently couldn't sell the product. We've got uncertainties here. The state is, it's a good starting point, offering a lot of regulation. And we're talking about throughout the state right now, 16 different, they say call traders, I'll say growers. They're not offering any licenses for the largest tier four. They don't know. So I would like to see us proceed with caution in the fact that we can do it. I like the conditional use aspect in all four tiers. I agree with Jan in the fact that I don't know how to deal with it at the moment, but there's a lot of 10-acre tracts of land out there. We can go out to 8th and Spoonsboro Road. There's 10-acre tracts of land out there. I call them piano keys that's been built, residential homes been built on. I don't think we want to see large production in that situation. So I would like to hear a little bit more from Jan as to her thoughts on acreage. But by the same token, tier one, tier two, I'm okay with it as a conditional use in AR zones, all four AR zones. I've got a little bit heartburn with tier three. I would offer a recommendation to simply prohibit tier four because one, there's no license right now that is going to be issued. This is going to be several years down the road, I believe, and give it a chance to flush things out. We can always revisit it. I'm not saying no to tier four because it's allowed in other areas. the industrial zones, the ED zones and so forth, much in kind with the sort of building that you would be seeing. The 50,000 square foot building is a big building and I you know I don't see it in in the AR area but I can see it in other areas so those are my thoughts right now. Well, I have some numbers for you all to consider. In Tier 1, you know, because of the 10-acre tracks, and, you know, we could put Tier 1, you know, a minimum of 10 acres, Tier 1. Tier 2, which is the 10,000 square feet, I suggest 40 acres. That's our minimum acreage for a farm. Tier 3, up to 25,000 square feet. I'm open. I've written above 40. If we want to put it up to 100, I don't have a 25,000 square foot building. What does that look like? And again, this is a growing area. That's a half an acre. That's a half an acre. So I would think on a larger track would make sense to me. And then I'm in agreement with Tier 4 that I'd like to see it. We revisit it when the time comes. I just have a question for clarification. You're discussing in the AR zone, is that correct? You wouldn't limit the size for I1, I2, and ED. You're just saying AR. Okay. Ag zones. I hear what you're saying. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate and agree with Jan's thinking on acreage and being sensitive to that. And now that I've thought about it again, I would support Mr. Owens' notion of taking tier four just out of the ag zones altogether for the time being. Keep it in the industrial zone. Sure, sure. In the industrial zone, that's perfectly normal. Basically, what I'm hearing is our main focus is the ag zone and making sure we protect as much as we can. That's the sentiment that I'm getting, right? Right. Because if you do build a 100,000 square foot building, it's still an ag zone, but if that building were to be torn down eventually, that soil will never be the same. So I think that's why you've disturbed it too much. I would just say, as I thought about this, I was thinking about the Gulf Warwork Group, which is that nobody likes that phrase anymore. But when we were talking about creating the ag economic development zone, that was one of the things that we discussed was that there are a lot of ag economic development potentials that would absolutely ruin the soil. You could put in a factory to produce robotic tractors in an ag economic development zone. It does not protect the soil. So by analogy, to me, what we're being asked to think about is how can we do this in a way that we can produce the product but doesn't destroy what we're trying to protect. I think we're headed in the right direction here. With that being said, does anyone want to make a shot at this? Can I ask a quick question? You surely can. If there's an acreage minimum, let's say you have an existing farm with three or four buildings on 40 acres, how do you word it in such a way that you can or cannot include the facility for cannabis production? That's a good question. I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I'm sorry, Gary, I already has buildings on or are we talking about a dedicated 40 acres for for the relevant let me ask let me ask if i get this right uh as a 40 just as an example 40 acres you're wondering if they've already got existing buildings would 2500 or 5000 square feet be allowed in addition i would i would agree i'm okay with that yes yeah i'm okay with that and and the possibility exists that there's a building that retrofitted i mean yeah sure to uh somebody to grow cannabis it takes some investment to do that but Something that just occurred to me, I do think in the A zones, we should also include some sort of regulation on lighting. And perhaps, I don't know if you want to get into sound, but certainly lighting, because of its adverse effects on livestock. Lighting similar to just a certain zone, downward, everything downward? Something like that because Mr. Horn, we were talking about what the statute has and it specifically says gated, lit, secure and I just don't want it to look like Fort Knox in the rural area. Okay. No, I agree. I agree. I'm going to put this out here just because I have the opportunity to say it. It probably is not appropriate for this particular conversation. I'd love to see licensing of these facilities giving a premium to folks who agree to put solar. Because we're going to be talking about relying on electricity. We're going to be talking about additional impact on the grid. and on the building, not out in the yard, right? Well, yep. I just wanted to add one caution here, that the regulations do require lighting. You're not going to be able to decrease whatever lighting is required by the regulation, but it's certainly something that the Board of Adjustment can consider when it's doing a conditional use review. I presume you're talking about outside lighting, not grow lights. Correct. Okay. No, I know we can't do anything that would contradict the statute. I just thought, as we've done in the past with other developments, angled downward only so high up for the post, those kinds of considerations. My only question to that is a concern, is safety with the lighting at night. You never know us. That's my only thing. Your concern is valid, too, but just from a safety standpoint, how would that play into it? No, it would meet the statute, but it would do so in a way that has some thought. That's all. So I would offer that the council, and again, we haven't met since this occurred, the council just initiated a text amendment for lighting, more of a comprehensive approach. So that will be coming to the Planning Commission and specifically the Zoning Committee in June. So we'll have an opportunity to look at lighting just really across the board and can certainly address outdoor lighting for conditional uses and agricultural uses if we need to. but I want to just maybe bring that forward in terms of not necessarily connecting lighting just to this one conditional use, but maybe if we can address it for all of the conditional uses in the ag zone, that might be more comprehensive. Okay. All right. So long as we remember to do it. Yeah, that's basically what's going to happen. Let's do it. All right. So we'll do it. So I'm ready when you guys are. You? Ms. Meyer? Oh, Mr. Polo has something to do. No, go ahead. No, I was just going to make a motion. Okay. We need a motion. We ready for a motion? Yes. Thanks, sir. move to approve Plan Zota 24-2 with the language recommended by the Zoning Committee and adding to that the rejection of Tier 4 facilities in the Ag AG zone. Second. All right, so we have a motion. With that motion, Mr. Pohl, you were taking out the tier four language for AG, correct? Okay. Clarification. Are we starting with the staff alternative text and integrating the zoning committee's recommendations to the staff alternative text that was additional conditions and do we want and do we want to add the acreage requirements as suggested I I would so let's let me include that in my motion that would require a for tier one a 10 acre minimum she has a 10 acre minimum track size for tier 1 tier 2 and 3 I did not have written down but Jan to tier 2 to tier 2 40 acre minimum tier 3 100 acre minimum or 3 is what all right Mr. Polk, I want you to rephrase that so we know we have that all in one motion together. So move to approve this. Plan Zota 24-2. Staff alternative text. With the staff alternative text as modified by the recommendations of the Zoning Committee with an additional projection of tier four facilities in ag agricultural zones and with ag acreage requirements as follows 10 acre minimum for tier 1 40 acre minimum for tier two and uh 100 acre minimum for tier three did we get conditional zone in there additional for all ag yeah that was that was on the committee okay so we have that motion and mr davis you seconded that motion correct all right just just one clarification uh tier four listed as prohibited in the A zones as opposed to rejecting. Just show it as prohibited. Okay. All right. Any further discussions to that motion? All right. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Oh, geez. This works. Lost my track. Okay, commission items? Waiver? Get a change of the planning session to the 23rd meeting, I think. If you want to watch a really fun series about growing marijuana on the farm. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, moving under your commission items. We have a request for a waiver. I have not. Oh, this is Guy Ritchie's doing this series, too. Here we go. So we are out on Providence Parkway. This location here, Russell Cave would be to my right, Newtown Pike to the left. Here we have the urban service boundary through here. You previously approved this development plan. It has not yet been certified. This is the housing, supportive use housing in the ED. This plan has been scaled back to meet that proportion. You may recall that discussion that they're only allowed a certain amount of square footage relative to the ED square footage. And so they have occupied, what they're proposing here is roughly 12 acres, over 300 and some units of townhouses and apartments. And again, you can see the townhouses here, here, through here, and in the central location with the apartments with this plan. I believe there's a medical cannabis producer on this property next in the evening. The waiver that you have before you is that they proposed this to be a public street right through here, this main entrance into the development. There was some discussion about that being a public street or an access easement, et cetera. as the plan went through. But they are proposing it as a public street and you can see that then there are drive aisles that provide rear loading for the townhouses. Again, they're fronted on Providence Place. They have garages in the back so they'll be rear loaded. And then of course, access to the parking that serves the apartments and here's the amenities as well. As a public street, Coming off of Providence Parkway, there's a spacing requirement between locals, in essence, or access points of 250 feet. This is 150 feet, so they're about 100 short. But you can see it serves the layout very efficiently. The street extends back here. And then again, they have rear-loaded townhouses with access into the apartments. It allows them to centralize these apartments and have the amenities. So it facilitates the layout of the property. And again, it's 150 feet in reviewing it. Staff believes that's adequate considering the use of the property. They are bound by this Providence Parkway. That's a set location. And, of course, serve and service boundary is a set location as well. So that places some challenges on them. We believe staff and in conversation with traffic engineering that this waiver shouldn't provide any safety issues for good traffic movement and function within the development and would recommend that you do approve the waiver. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. If you have any questions for Mr. Martin? Seeing none, Mr. Murphy. Thank you for waiting too. Thank you for hearing us, and I'll be short. Everybody's tired. We appreciate staff consideration of this. You all approved this plan in November. The only issue before you is this waiver, and we are, just to remind you, our units along Providence Place, all the townhomes face Providence, no vehicular access from Providence. Providence we have our front front doors but are in our pedestrian sidewalks out to the street so all our vehicular access is through the rear and so this is the appropriate place to put that intersection to give us the access to the rears of these townhomes and so our townhome traffic doesn't have to drive through the apartments to get to the townhomes or traffic and fire trucks trucks and trash trucks and moving vans and all that sort of thing. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Okay, bring it back to commission. Mr. Knowles. I've got a quick question. Mr. Murphy, one, I was trying to get our chairperson's attention so that you didn't have to set through the cannabis hearing. But at any rate, sorry about that. If I remember correctly, when we last saw this, there was much discussion on the building of Providence Place Parkway, and the decision and action was taken that that would be completed with the 51st unit. 61st, I believe. 61st? It was 60. You proposed 60, and that was what was adopted. Okay. So that's still on here. 60 is still doable, then. Okay. But that's part of this, correct? Yes. Okay. All right. I'm okay with it. Just clarification. Thank you, sir. Mr. Owens, you want to make a motion? I don't have this thing in front of me. I could. There you go, right here. If I could find it, I will. So Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of the request made by the applicant. Plan MJDB 23-30 Kingston Hall for the waiver of the subdivision regulations as stated. Okay, we have a motion, do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Worth. If there's any discussion to this motion, hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. All right. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'd like to ask that the Planning Commission will amend their meeting schedule to include a planning commission work session at the end of the zoning hearing on Thursday, May the 23rd. So the zoning hearing will start at 1.30 and whatever zoning items are on that agenda will be addressed. And then following the completion of that, the planning commission will go into work session in this space for purposes of receiving an update on the urban growth management master plan and the work has been done for that. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And we need to get a motion of that acceptance. Yes, please. Okay, the floor is open for a motion to accept the work session after our next zoning meeting. I need a motion. Motion to accept. Okay, thank you, Mr. Davis. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Meyer. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Mr. Chair, thank you. And just as a reminder, you all have already canceled the work session scheduled for next Thursday, May 16th. So there will be no meeting of the Planning Commission next week. And we'll see you all again then on Thursday, May 23rd. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, staff. I will see you all in June. See you in June.