Music Thank you. Thank you. Do the other side. Okay, all righty. Good afternoon everyone, my apologies. This is July 11th, welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission Subdivision Items Meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order and without objection, I would like to move an item up on the agenda. Today is on the agenda page 10, performance bonds and letter of credit. I'd like to take action on those, that particular item. Yes, Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit as enumerated on the memorandum from staff. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Seconded by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Davis, how do you submit? The tall one, okay. So seconded by Mr. Jonathan Davis, my apologies. Any further discussion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. So I'll come on back to the beginning of the agenda. We do not have the approval of minutes. Today, we're going to move on to agenda item three, postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you'll turn in the agenda to page seven, item H, PLN, MJDP 24. I'd like to ask for one month postponement on this. We've got a BOA associated with it that we've yet to file. Okay, Mr. Carter, and that's the August 8th meeting? Yes. Okay. Does the commission have any comments on that? If not, the floor is open. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 24-38 SP Gross Subdivision until August the 8th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, seconded by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes, thank you. Okay, and then I have two more items. On page three, item B, PLN, MJDP 23-64, Belmont Farm Citation Center. Also, I'd like to ask for one month to the August 8th hearing. We're still working on the 30 conditions that are on it. Okay, thank you Mr. Carter. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of plan MJDP 23-94 Belmont Farm Citation until August 8th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Davis, Jonathan Davis. Please vote via Grantus. Okay, and then- Passes. Final item is on page 8, item J, PLN, MJDP 24-40, Pleasant Ridge, subdivision lot 127. On this one, we're still working on trying to coordinate a second access point to the development off Paradise Lane. Another one month? One month, yes. Okay. August 8th. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. The floor is open. We're in motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN-MJDP 24-40, Pleasant Ridge Subdivision. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Boxdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, seeing anyone, I would like to go back to my original proposal. Mr. Chairman, if I may, staff has a couple of items to bring to your attention. Yes, sir. On page two, at the bottom under development plans. Major development plan 23-50, Wolf Run Industrial Park, block A, located out at Frankfort Court. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant on some issues on that particular plan and they're requesting a one month postponement. Okay, thank you. The floor is open for motion on the one month postponement. Ms. Worth? Mr. Chair, I move for one month postponement of PLNMJDP 2350 Wolf Run Industrial Park as requested by staff. Thank you, we have a second. Second by Ms. Barksdale, please vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes. Mr. Chairman, on page nine of your agenda, item K, Major Development Plan 24-41, Masterson Station Center. That applicant has requested a one-month postponement to continue to work on some issues with staff on the layout for that particular development. All right, thank you. The floor is open for a motion to accept the one-month postponement. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chair, I move for one month postponement for PLNMJDP 24-41 Masterson Station Center for staff. Thank you. And a second? Second. Second. By Ms. Worth, please vote Villagranicus. And Mr. Chairman, I have another one. Keep it going. Nice. I skipped over it, it should have been before that one you just acted on. I would direct your attention to the bottom of page six. Item G, this is major development plan 24-37, North Parkway Acres. It's located at 2275 North Broadway. That applicant has requested a one month postponement. they're working on some issues related to a very large sinkhole that exists on that property. Okay. All right. Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to postpone PLN MJDP 24-37 to the August 8th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, the motion passes. All right, so I want to take it back to agenda page 10. And if there aren't any objections, I would like to take the commission items, the election of officers, and get the motion for that. And next would be item B as well. So we have the election of officers. The current officers are as follows. Chair Larry Forster, Vice Chair Zach Davis, Secretary Janice Meyer, Parliamentarian Judy Wirth. The nominating committee recommended the following slate. Chair Larry Forster, Vice Chair Zach Davis, Secretary Robin Mickler, and Parliamentarian Judy Wirth. Are there any other comments or additions to that, recommendations from the commission? Mr. Chair? Yes. If there's no discussion, I'll move for approval of the slate as presented with Chair being Larry Forrester, Vice Chair Zach Davis, Secretary Robin Mickler, and Parliamentarian Judy Werner. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Ms. Boxdale. If there aren't any further discussion, please vote via Granicus. I guess. Alrighty. Yes, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, let the record show that that was a unanimous vote and that we had to be required because this was a supermajority needed in this particular case. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. That was correct. And item B, delegation of secretary duties. So his state's here, the chair will request that the commission consider taking similar action at this turn. So I need a, that's an action item, the delegation of secretary duties. Mr. Chairman, I move that we delegate the secretary's duties to the director of the division of planning and his staff. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. All right. That motion passes as well, majority. Thank you. So, Ms. Wade? Yes, sir. We do have a consent agenda for you today, and it does involve six items, so I will read those out loud. And if anyone wishes to have an item removed from the consent agenda, if you'll kind of wave your hand at me when I read that item, then the Planning Commission won't act on that. We'll go ahead and present it. And then again, of course, if any of the Planning Commission members want one removed, they'll let me know as well. The first item appears on page two of our regular agenda. It is item A, PLN FRP 24-19 for Lee Thomas Mills Estate. This is an amended final record plat for property at 200 Harp Innes Road. And for that item, we do have the affidavit indicating that the sign was posted in the agricultural zone. The next item is also on page two. It's item B, PLN FRP 24-20, Castleton Lions Incorporated Property, located at 2469 Ironworks Pike, and that is a final record plat as well. Are there people present that wish to? Okay, so that item should be removed so it can be presented to the commission. The next four items are all development plans. Page five, item E, PLN MJDP 24-35 for Kidwell and Otis property, also known as Gulfview Estates, and that's for property located at 802 and 804 Gulfview Drive. So anyone present who wishes to have this item heard? Okay, seeing none. The next item appears on our regular agenda on page six, item F, PLN MJDP 24-36 for the Coventry, also known as Belmont development of lot six, located at 2350 Remington Way. Anyone that wishes to have this item removed from the consent agenda? Okay. Next item appears on page eight of our agenda, item I. PLNMJDP 24-39 for Hamburg Place Farm, also known as the Sir Barton Office Park, lot M. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 2717 Flora Fina Street. So anyone that wishes to have this item presented? Okay, and then our last item appears on page nine. It's item L, PLNMJDP 24-44 for the Pemberton Farm Development Lot 3B, also known as the Bluegrass Business Park. This is also an amended final development plan for property located at 2200 Innovation Drive. Is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard? Okay, Chairman Forster, that means we can move forward with five of the items on the consent agenda today. And then we'll move forward with staff presentations. Okay, thank you Ms. Wade. So we can take the consent agenda as presented with the removal of item B on page two. The floor is open for a motion. Yes, Mr. Bickler? I move to accept the consent agenda as presented by staff. We have a motion, do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Mr. Chairman, I will support the motion, however I disqualify myself on the Lee Thomas Mills application or plat. Okay, that's in the record. Just a question, should it also say with the removal of that one item as presented with the removal of the one item? Yes, as presented by staff with the removal of the Castleton Lions estate. Thank you. Ms. Worth, you still second that motion? Yes. Okay. So we have a motion and a second by Ms. Worth. Just a reminder that when Planning Commission members recuse from an item, we'll send you the form to fill out and sign it and send it back to us. Okay. Ms. Worth, she seconded that motion. and we will vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Okay, so that should put us back on page two. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. If I may, considering that the first item that's on Castle and Lions is now being heard, I would ask if it's possible, is it available to be on Granicus so that everybody can see it? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Okay, with that being said, PLN FRP 24-20, Castleton Lines Incorporated Property. As with the other agricultural subdivision that we had earlier, this requires posting of a sign on the property to notify, and that has been done and an affidavit has been submitted by the applicant. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. So the first item today is a final record plat, 24-20. And it is an agricultural plat. And as you all are aware, the only reason it is before you today is the fact that it is an agricultural plant. It does require a sign, an affidavit, just like the previous one, on this as well. The subdivision plant that you see is to subdivide the parent tract. Here we have Iron Works Road and Mount Horeb. They are subdividing just a little over 1,000 acres into 16 smaller tracts of land. The smallest one, they range as 40 acres, which is the minimum legal size of an agricultural lot under our zoning ordinance, to 83 acres in size. So there's a range in between there. You can see the layout with frontage along Mount Horeb. These are long and rectangular. Here's one that's pretty square here. These are a little more rectangular. There's a little bit more to this lot as it picks up this area in here. This is a floodplain. There is a floodplain, a FEMA-recognized floodplain in that area. It's on the plat. There's a setback as required, a building setback off that floodplain. You can see these various little areas here. Some of these, see those little kind of crosshatch, those areas? Those are potential sinkhole areas as well as a potential spring on this property. Those two are non-buildable areas and need to be labeled as such. In reviewing the plat, staff raised some access issues. They have access shown on these lots, existing access. One of those that we questioned is a shared access. In that case, what staff would anticipate is once this plat is recorded, they'll address that shared access with an easement of some sort for obvious reasons. It's shared. They're going to need to have some sort of arrangement, legal arrangement on that shared access. There are several other lots, 7 through 10 and 13 through 15, that are along Mount Horeb that do not have existing access points. Those assets points will need to be approved by our Division of Traffic Engineering at such time permits would be pulled on these properties. And that's if and and permits would be pulled to build a house. You're allowed a house on your farm. So if someone wants to pull a permit and build a house, they're going to need access to the farm. And in fact, if they wanted to farm it and not build on it, they still are going to need a permit to put in any new access. Several of the lots through there have existing access. So that's not an issue. It's just the ones we enumerated will have to gain approval. It's already on the plat, but you all have heard this before when we talk about ag plats, that if they do intend to build a home on their property, they'll need health department approval of the septic tank. These lots are 100% compliant with your ordinance. They have more than enough frontage. They have one plot has 40 acres on up to 80, as I said, acres, so they meet the size requirement. They've established a 300-foot building line as required on these lots as well. And as you all are very much aware, plats are ministerial. And under our own regulations, ag plats aren't really considered subdivision if there's no public infrastructure. And there's not. They're not building a road. Sometimes, as you're aware, we'll get an agricultural subdivision, they'll build a road. Tallinn Winery is a good example. You may recall, it's been recent, they built a road to serve the 10-acre lots that they created on Tallinn. In this case, there's no such infrastructure required. So, again, we bring it to you as an agricultural plant, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Do you have any questions for staff? Mr. Wilson. Yeah, clarify for me on number nine. It says here possible sunk hole. I'm sorry, number nine, resolve shared access on lots two and three? Yeah, I think it is. Denote sinkholes as non-buildable areas. Is this possible sinkhole? Yes. I'm a little confused. Why is it? A note on the plat will label them as non-buildable because you generally don't want to build on a sinkhole. I know, but you got down here possible. Well, they've been identified on a map. but no geotech has been done. So they appear to be sinkholes based on mapping. But again, no geotech is done and when you've got lots of room, it's better just to As a follow-up to that, when you have a possible sinkhole, when you talk about 83 acres, that includes that right now, that possibility? Yes, they've been identified on the various If in fact it comes back that it is a sinkhole, do you still include that as 83 acres or do you subtract that out? No. No? Okay. We have sinkholes all over Fayette County. Yeah, I know I got one in my backyard. I hope you haven't been throwing any trash or junk or anything into it, dumping any water. Okay, all right. Mr. Martin, there's at least one possible spring noted on the plat. Would it be afforded the same protection of- Yes, it's a non-buildable area. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Can you, I just want to make sure I'm seeing this right. Can you walk me through that property boundary between the proposed track one and track two? I'm sorry, I missed some of that. Mr. McClurellis. you walk me through maybe with the that on that property boundary between track one and track two it's hard to see it i like it i can see it it runs down to there sound of a dog-led part on the back of it it it runs through the floodplain So it runs through the floodplain. And then this is just a curiosity. So when it gets up to the road, which is Ironworks Pike on this one, looks like it in this maybe easement area widens out, then gets narrow, then sort of tapers up, then drops back down. Was there a discussion on that? I'm just curious what the. No. I'm sure the applicant can answer your question for you why they chose to do that. But when staff looks at it, it's ministerial again. It's a record plat. They're establishing those per their needs, their wants. And we just reviewed their frontage, their size, and what few other things do fall under our jurisdiction. Thank you. I would add that you have a couple of letters in your packet from people that, emails and letters that were sent in, two of them, that express concern about the subdivision of the property. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I think there's no more questions to that applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners on behalf of the owner. We have read and understand the nine conditions set by staff. Request approval and I'll try to answer any questions you got. Okay, thank you Mr. Kaley. Do we have any questions for Mr. Kaley? Yes, Mr. Mikkel. I mean, I just would ask the same. I'm just curious what the, everything here is so regular and straight coming off the roads, and then you've got this one, and I sort of was. Existing fences, existing structures, weigh into a lot of where we were laying these out. That one needed, we have the 750 feet frontage along the road at the 300 foot building line setback, And then with what they have there is the main buildings we needed to get beyond that to a larger buildable area in Bahac. And that's the dogleg that Tom spoke of. Thank you. Okay, I'm not seeing any further questions at this time, Mr. Kelly, so I'm sure we'll call you back. All right. All right, thank you. So this next session is for the citizen comments. and I have a list here but if there's anyone that's not on this list that would like to speak please do so after I get through the list first there's a Judy Miller that signed it up to speak Judy okay yes and there we will have a timer up for three minutes from staff for each citizen I just have a lot of concerns to access 16 more driveways on that world. It's a dangerous road now it's we've lost mirrors off trucks I've seen people almost hit bicycle riders where they come over the hills middle of the road lot of construction traffic lot of dumpsters you and all this construction it's going to be really tough and the people that live on that or it's going to be a little bit on the same it can see this the only way that can access those is straight off of Mount Horro. That one driveway in that split off it wouldn't be so bad but 16 individual would be tough. Can you move them up? You can move it. 16 individual new driveways would be very difficult directly on Mount Horeb due to the amount of people that drive it now, the big trucks, the traffic, the horse trailers. Nobody stays in their lane. They're across the middle of the road. I've lost mirrors off both sides of the truck within the first two weeks of living there. So you have to be really careful when you drive it now. And we're just concerned how much more traffic that would create, especially during the construction period, the number of big trucks. And there's not really designated where the driveways are going to be as of yet that I can see. it's kind of hard to see from here. So it would be nice if they could address that address, I mean that issue. I'm sure other people share that same issue. It's not that they're doing something that's not within their rights, but just how they're going to approach it for everybody else's standpoint on that street would be kind of nice to hear. So thank you. Next, Jacqueline Bernard. Hi, Jackie Bernard. I also would say I have the same concerns. I have two teenage boys that drive down that road. The road's very narrow. That's 16 more, or what is it, 11 more access to Mount Horeb. And I'll have to disagree with the gentleman that spoke. It says it's not a subdivision. That is adding, that's making that road a subdivision. You're adding so many more. that's a farm now with long driveways. I've lived out there 29 years. It's gonna add a lot more traffic, I'm very concerned. My other question would be environmentally, the sinkhole, the spring-fed water that goes into a pond that lives right directly across the road from me, wondering if that's been addressed, the runoff from the new buildings. Another concern would be the Elkhorn Creek also has runoff from that farm. It was brought to my attention today that that's a 1793 development. I'm wondering if there's been anyone look at this from a historical side. There are log cabins on that property that have been there since 1793. I don't know if this is where to bring that up, but it would be a concern to me. The main house there, also one of the oldest dwellings in that part of the county. Has that been a concern of anyone? Very concerned neighbor, loved the area, lived out there for 29 years, would like to know more about the plans for preserving the area. Thank you. Next, Stacy Arani. Hi, Stacy Arani. I also have a farm down Mount Horeb. And my main question, I know my farm is exactly two miles from the Ironworks Pike. So how short is the frontage? Like how long are these 11 driveways going to be? Is that 11 driveways within one mile? It seems like that's, again, awfully close. And if they're going to do that, they have to make it safe because that is probably one of the most unsafe roads right now. There's no speed limit, hills. You cannot see people pulling in and out. And I'm thinking within a mile and a half, 11 new driveways would have to be really carefully planned in order to keep it from causing problems. And I think everyone else covered my other concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Kelly Arani. Hi. Kelly Arani. I'm not going to beat it over the head, but I would just say the same things. And just that, the danger of it, we drive our horses down there every day to go to the horse park. And people drive way too fast anyway, pulling out of our farm is already treacherous. That's not what we're here for. But 11 more driveways, I just think, would be very, very difficult. And the construction during that time, I don't know if that construction is going to happen all at the same time, when it's going to start, when it's going to finish, If one place is going to be built, then the next, then the next, that's going to be a long time of that road basically not passable and already very, very dangerous and narrow. So I would say that's my biggest concern as well. And same with what they said. That farm is just really, really gorgeous and really has been there for a very long time as we know. And that's the appeal of that road. and I would just be interested to see what 11 new basically subdivided portions kind of does to that layout. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Kelly, you want to come back up and make any other rebuttal comments? Are you okay? I'm okay. If you want me to address something, I will, but otherwise we're good. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may, because I would like to help alleviate some of the concerns. Where there is no existing access, traffic engineering will have to approve any new access. One of the things that they take into account is site distance. So they will be taking a look at that topography and the rolling aspect of the road to help determine the safest location for an access point. And they can, under their authority, encourage shared access points as well in order to reduce conflict points on Mount Horeb. The lots all meet the 750-foot frontage. that's the minimum requirement they all meet that requirement so and again uh these are farms so any construction out there would be farm construction it'd be a barn be a house people are lived but that that would be it so okay um thank you sir commissioners do we have any questions comments Ms. Barksdale? Oh, okay, okay. Anybody? That's good. Okay. Mr. Davis? For my colleagues who are on the subdivision committee, could you give those of us who are not just an overview of the access at how it was explained in the process of, I'm guessing this is a county road, what all does that involve with sight lines and the safety checks put in? Pretty much as Mr. Martin said, you know, traffic engineering would have to, you know, assess any issues that are created. So that was pretty much the extent of our conversation. Okay. Any other questions, comments? If not, I'll just bring it back to the commission for and close this portion out. Step up to the podium. You guys step up to the podium. I have a question with what your comment was that you'll have traffic or safety. They come out and they decide where the roads are going to go. So if there is not, like, that's a very hilly road. And if they decided there wasn't an access there, would then move a driveway somewhere else? or would then we then do we come back here and get to talk about that or is it just they're going to move the driveway this is very hilly i i guarantee you there's no way they could put 11 entrances on that road without being in front of a hill just curious what do they do if there isn't an access to one of those properties that's safe yep there's traffic here Here. Again, to clarify, Mr. Davis. I'm sorry. No, go ahead, Tom. I was just going to state, it's important to understand that if this property is sold and you have a property owner and they own that piece of property, it's a legal piece of property. conforming and they're allowed under law to have access traffic engineering will endeavor to make it as safe as possible but they are allowed under state law access to their property as is everyone who lives out there that has access to the property yes that's David to the actual traffic engineering so yeah when they come in you know whichever lots sell off some someone may buy multiple lots but either way they'll come in and we'll try to site they can't they're not just gonna be able to put it wherever they want so we'll try to put get the location with the most efficient site distance and there may be even two relatively close to one another if that's the the most ideal location but with 750 foot even it is a rolling landscape for sure with 750 foot generally that does offer some Avenue to to find the one that meets all our site recommendations. And David, can't you require signage as well? Hidden driveway, short that sort of thing. Correct, there's things like that. Raise awareness. Yeah, so there's things that can be done to address the safety issue. But ultimately like Tom said, with a lot you have to have access. so i make a suggestion hold on one second i was going to make sure are you done david you're good to go okay yes ma'am i'm pretty abby jones abby jones consulting i think i'm the only licensed land surveyor in the room so i just wanted to share that one of the common things that people put on plats is driveway easements or access easements. And so since you're doing a plat, maybe it makes sense to be doing those sorts of things at this point in time. Thank you. All right. If there aren't any further comments, questions from commissioners, now I can bring it back and close this portion out and open the floor up amongst each other. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. If there's not any other discussion, I've got a comment or two and I can make a motion on this. A couple of comments, first of all. I hear the neighbors out there, most of them also know that I've been living there for 50 plus years. I've managed to farm directly across the road most of that time. I go to church on the corner, looking out into the green pastures probably more often than I should be while in church. But we've got a neighbor, Spy Coast Farm, that has done what Councilor Alliance is asking to do 10 years ago, I would say. probably they subdivided their property they've got approximately the same amount of land they still have that farm intact today they have not sold a track of land during that time you know with Castle of Lyons this is a business operation Mr. Ryan bought it as everybody knows almost 20 years ago whatever he paid for it he probably put that much into it to restore it to the luster that it is today and the reputation that it's been for a long time. What we're talking about here, yeah it is a subdivision but it is at least a minimum 40 acres which which is within our regulations there's not a thing that is would be done today that says that someone cannot come in and buy all 1,000 acres tomorrow I don't think there's any plans right now as to as to what might take place this is more the state planting just like Spy Coast did. Myself, I'd like to say, you know, keep it a thousand acres. You know, it takes a significant sum of money for somebody to be able to do that. It may be, you know, there's a wonderful stallion facility on the front of the farm, wonderful office, wonderful house that was restored. It might get divided up into two tracks, three tracks, four tracks. It may not be 17 or 18 tracks, but it is allowable. So for that reason, I'm going to move for approval of plan FRP 24-20, Castle and the Lions Incorporated, with the nine conditions as presented. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Do we have a second to that motion? Okay. Second. Seconded by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any further discussions? Just one point. Mr. Martin used the term ministerial at least twice. And I think it would behooves to tell the public that we know what it means. Would you please explain to the public? It means that if you have met all the requirements of the land subdivision regulations and met the minimum size requirements in the zone along with the frontage, you cannot disapprove it. You have to approve it under state law. That's why it's called ministerial. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I thought that was important to know that we're limited. We can't do by anything other than what state law says. Thank you. All right, thank you. So we have a motion and a second. No further discussions. Please vote Villagranekas. Where are we? If it comes up. Yeah, well. They're working on it. Okay. All right. Okay, the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you everyone. Just one final comment. I'm speaking for myself, but I've heard this from a number of the commissioners. We're not happy about this, but we're doing what the law says we have to do. Okay, thank you Ms. Werff. So that will put us on agenda page four, item C, And PLNMJDP 24-28, and we do have revised staff recommendations as well. It's the paint sheet. And it looks like an adaptive reuse compliance report behind it. Thank you. Good afternoon. This one's going to be a slightly larger package. You're going to have several different items here. This project is located over off of Newtown Pike and 3rd Street. So we have revised conditions. It's an adaptive reuse program, so you'll have a staff report on how they've met their adaptive reuse. I give you a copy of what we have to follow so that we can review that. And then we also have all the information that the applicant has submitted to us for us to review to write the adaptive reuse project report. So it's a slightly large package. Just to let you know all the pieces, parts that are in there. okay as I said this property is located off of this is Maryland Avenue, Newtown Pike, we have 3rd street up here, this is this project started out with the brewery and tap room for the Blue Stallion which is located here off of 3rd street, we have parking that was agreed upon by the planning commission to be able to for the blue stallion it's located over here this project today they're coming in with this property here at the corner of maryland avenue and newtown pike this portion here this little triangle portion here at the bottom that was the old georgetown road right away and we had the applicant has an agreement with the city for an encroachment because within this little area here of the Georgetown Road right away is also the legacy trail that comes up through here so it follows up through Newtown Pike the encroachment agreement allowed them to add parking to that property for their use on the remaining portion of this property here so as you can tell this has been through several iterations as far as revisions we finally got one for today we're down to the first 11 conditions or our typical sign-off conditions then we had some cleanup conditions we needed to it says proposed walkways between properties they've added where's this whoops I'm Am I getting that right? There we go. I'm sorry about that. They have a building in here for the Blue Stallion. They have another one here, which was an old grain warehouse. They have a structure right here that's backing up to the proposed building that they are wanting to add. And so this is where we were asking for a sidewalk to be able to join into the remaining portion of this adaptive reuse project. So we have that. We have location of construction vehicle, access point, how are they going to get in here to build this structure. I'm just going over to clarify the uses for the building one and the site statistics. They just listed it in the site statistic as a lounge, when actually the whole thing that got this started was a brewery and a tap room. So we want to make sure that that's clarified. They're also proposing to have a fence that they want to put a, there's a driveway right here that goes out onto Maryland, real close to this intersection here. They put a parking area, but they're wanting to put a gate and a fence that goes up along the property line. We need to ask them to remove that because of the engrossment agreement. It was that no additions or alterations should be made to the right-of-way from Georgetown, but they were allowed to use it for the parking. And so we need to have that fence removed that they're showing. Clarify the parking spaces and turn around in that parking area. It's kind of an odd shape as far as dimensions because the driveway comes up in the middle of the square for the parking lot, so we're not sure how the where the spaces are and where the turnaround is going to be on that we just need to have them correct the Commission certification they have it for a minor plan correct spelling in the purpose of amendment see remove parking located adjacent to the railroad right away currently they're showing parking along this grain warehouse building they're showing parking here now to be able to park in these parking spaces you would have to back out which is where a railroad comes through here so to be able to do this you would have to back out into the right-of-way what we're looking for is to have some type of agreement for them to be able to use that so at this time we were asking them to remove those parking spaces because on the previous plan they showed it as an access point for the circulation you would come in this direction circulate through here and go back out and they had a driveway that would lead out and now they're adding these parking so we want them to remove that until they have an agreement that they're able to use the railroad right-of-way for access and for turnaround for parking spaces answers a couple so that's that label proposed parking area adjacent to the right-of-way they proposed two new trees but we have a large significant tree right here in the middle of the property and they put two new trees underneath Since this is a significant tree, it's 51 inches in diameter, we believe that putting two new trees underneath would damage the existing significant tree. Then just resolve compliance with Article 16, 18, and 20. That's talking about parking, landscaping, open space parking with this parking lot that they're proposing down here and also up here. So we just want to make sure that they review that. So that goes through our conditions. Then as a state, we have an adaptive reuse project, a copy of the revised. We did a revision to the adaptive reuse as far as how it's written and what the points that they need to review to meet. So we have a copy of that. and then what they submitted to us is the remaining showing pictures of how they felt like they met it. So after reviewing all that information, we were able to come up with the adaptive reuse report, where they met the conditions, and we're hoping with the removal of the fence line, they can keep the condition of, I'm looking for, there's a condition for being adjacent to multipath and open space amenities. By putting in the proposed fence, that kind of takes away from that credit. There's two points there so that they can meet their requirement of 10. so that fence needs to be removed so that it opens it up to the legacy trail that's going to go up along that side of the property. But with that, that's condition number 18. If they'd be able to make these changes, we believe that they can meet the administrative, the adaptive reuse, so their staff report. So I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. All right, do we have any comments or questions for staff? Yes, sir. I mean, a question regarding the parking area there. They essentially the problem is, is the problem hypothetical or are trains actually coming through there? There are trains running through there. there and then it's just the idea of you're backing up on somebody else's property so you should have permission from them you know we do this with an access easement a lot but we're just looking for them to say that you know from the railroad itself that they have permission to be able to use that as part of their development. Well, I'm sure that's not easy to get. Well, the first plan didn't have it backing up, so. The first plan didn't have what? The first plan when they came through here did not have those parking spaces. That's what they're wanting to add today. I see. And so that's where our concern came up, because before it was just an access drive to get out of the property. But now they're wanting to add eight parking spaces. So we have some concerns over, well, just backing into somebody else's property. Sure. If they did, would they be able to fit, I'm just curious, if they don't get permission, would they be able to fit parallel spaces or is that- That was what they had on the previous plan, yes, sir. Thank you. I need a clarification. Where it says disconnected rail and they're proposing the parking spaces. That is not being used for rail traffic. Rather, it's the RJ Corman line behind. I'm not disputing that the railroad still owns that sliver of land, but it is not. It's parking lot right now. It's paved. It's paved, yes. paved now. Somebody asked, is it still active? That piece is not actively used by trains. The railroad is certainly active. The railroad is certainly active going through there. And that is true. And the whole thing is, she has a property line right there. Now you're crossing that property line onto somebody else's property. property is part of the issue here. As you're crossing to somebody else's property, whether it's yours or mine, but it's the railroad's property. So we want to make sure that they don't stack a whole bunch of cars and a railroad, a train decides to come through there, why they have a bunch of cars stacked there. So we just want to make sure that it's an agreement and understanding between all parties. No, certainly, I'm not disputing that it's the railroad's property. I just, the disconnected rail portion where they are proposing some parking is paved and not active. Right, and it's paved and I'm just looking at the property lines. No, it is the rails, but it's not active. It's a legal issue. Yeah, yeah. It's just being able to use somebody else's property. just as they're able to use the right-of-way from Georgetown, because they have an encroachment agreement that they wrote with the city of Lexington to be able to use that corner portion. And that's why the city didn't sell it to them, so that they're able to put the trail system through there, is why the trail's located on there. But the city did not sell them that portion of the property, but is allowing them to encroach on it, to use it as part of their parking that they wanted to add. So that was an agreement, that they had a legal agreement. So that's what we're looking for. Anybody else? Any other questions for staff? Thank you so much. Applicant? Hello, Abby Jones, Abby Jones Consulting. I'm glad to be with you here today to discuss this exciting infill and redevelopment project which is something that your comp plan strongly encourages and you don't see near enough so I'm glad to work with Cheryl and Tom further on the different suggestions that have been made my client has been agreeable to those different items so we're glad to take care of those items I think for the sake of just clarifying what's going on I'd like to just maybe give a few points there has been access by our property onto the railroad for 100 years we are working with a title company to run that back to get the ownership of that right clarified we continue to work on that it's just not available to us here today because they're having to run it back so far so we're working on that like i said we we've had 100 years of access for that sliver of land but we are working with an attorney to clarify some things there and it is paved just so that's something the reason why we were asking about a fence and we're glad to remove it or put it in a different location or whatever is most appropriate is because there is already a problem with security for the unhoused population in this area and so as we're doing these improvements we want to make sure that we're keeping things secure but we're glad to work with staff like i said on whatever restrictions are necessary to be able to move our project forward that was just our forward thinking question and we would rather tell you about our ideas in fullness rather than hiding something and doing it later we just don't operate that way and then last on the trees we'll continue to work with the city arborist to find a place for the new trees that aren't in conflict with utilities or the art visibility that's been a bit of an issue because we don't want to cover up the art that we've actually put out there so those were just a couple of questions of questions I wanted to give you some information on I'm glad to answer any other questions you may have okay thank you do we have any questions for the applicant not seeing any thank you oh I'm sorry sorry that's okay Thank you. Ms. Jones, the building, I guess, at 620 West Third Street, the old green, what's proposed there? And I'm sorry, I did not see this when it came to us in subdivision. I don't know when it did come to us in subdivision, but I didn't see it. We've been postponed a bit, so. A bit, okay. What's proposed for that? Right now we do not have a tenant that is planned for that structure right now. So we are trying to get a tenant. So we are, that's one of the things that we're trying to work through is finding a tenant that will be a good fit for the area. Okay. Just. We don't want to have a vacant structure. Comment on that. You know, I'm looking through this and it does say historic. My thoughts is there is a difference between historic and old. So I'll leave it at that, but I'm not sure what could be done there. So anyway. It has had tenants in the past that were able to make use of that, whether it was artists that needed loft space, whether it was people that wanted- How long ago? I don't know the exact years because I wasn't the person that took care of those things. Yeah, that's okay. Well, that's fine. I'm just curious. I think it's time to put something new in there. Just my thought. Do we have any further questions for Ms. Jones? Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone like to speak on this application? All right. With that being said, I bring it back to the commission for a motion. I just want to remind you, you have to make a motion on the plan and also on the report for the adaptive reuse. Yeah, the reuse compliance report. Two motions, two motions. Okay. The floor is open. Mr. Mickler. Yeah, I move to approve PLN MJDP 24-28, the Preston Addition Subdivision Erica Stryker property, with the proposed staff conditions. Thank you, Mr. Micklin. Do we have a second? I second. Okay, second. Second, Madam Ms. Worth. Any further discussion to that motion? please vote via Granicus okay the motion passes unanimously and then Mr. Mickler we need to take the adaptive reuse compliance report and I move to approve the adaptive reuse compliance report as presented by staff okay thank you do we have a second to that motion second by Ms. Worth please vote via Granicus Okay, that motion passes unanimously as well. Okay, so that should put us on page five. PLN, MJDP 24-34, South End Park. Davis Park? Yep. DeRudy Street. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would add very briefly, I appreciate Mr. Owen's comment about the difference between old and historic. I will leave it to your own judgment where I fall into that. So we are moving to major development plan 24-34 South End Park, Davis Park Development. Here we go. So I know you all are very much aware of the South End development. Here we have Oliver Davis coming through here, known originally as the Newtown Pike Extension Project. We have the railroad and the big sound wall down in this area. Here we have Scott Street, which eventually is intended to be extended over Broadway to the existing other side, where Scott Street exists and goes down to upper limestone in that area. This has been a project that's been going on for literally decades. This is a large redevelopment project funded by public dollars, millions of public dollars to relocate the street, buy the property, relocate residents, and also provide affordable housing. Much of the land, particularly in this area, is owned by the community trust. Here we have a public park. This is a little commercial area there on the corner of Versailles Road and Oliver Lewis Way. This is a continuation of a development pattern that was established previously through this area, where they have a series of homes that have been built. There's a street pattern with alleyways in the rear, and then they front up on DeRudy Street, which is right through here. Here's DeRudy. And then there's a single-family little cul-de-sac right in this location. They're continuing that pattern. So here we have single-family homes here, and then over here they're proposing townhouses around the little community center that is located on the corner that you can see there. You may recall a previous development plan that was approved. where AU and Associates is building affordable units here, apartments. There's several apartment buildings planned here and then across there. That's the most recently approved plan for affordable housing in the area. The original plan actually showed townhouses in that area, but now with amendments to it, AU is building the apartments. So the community land trust is just continuing their pattern and developing single-family homes along with the townhouses, which are single-family attached homes. We're bringing this to you today for the waiver request, and that is from this public street, the little, you can see the little U-shape with the large median, to Freedom. Here's Freedom Lane. That spacing should be normally 250 feet. It's 110. But as I pointed out, it kind of meets the existing spacing that the previously approved plans and the built environment, it reflects that system of development that already exists. And it also is dependent upon the previous street development pattern with these intersections and Freedom Coming here and then the intersections here with Scott Street. DeRudy has been relocated for a large part of its extension down through here. But with that, they're adding, I believe, 11 townhouses and eight single-family homes to the area. Staff and your subdivision committee have recommended approval of the plan to you, and we are recommending approval of the waiver request as well. The applicant cited hardship, and there is a certain amount of hardship based on the established built environment. But frankly, again, this is a huge infill and redevelopment project, federally and state funded and locally funded. So it really is a classic example of facilitation of infill and redevelopment in terms of a waiver request. With that, staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Thank you Mr. Martin. Mr. Mickley, you got me. Are they continuing that alley behind those single family homes or that doesn't follow that pattern after that first group? No, the alley pattern was with the initial development with the homes at front under Rudy. And then they built a cul-de-sac next to that and now this cul-de-sac or Loop Street is next to that. So that's, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant. Tony Barrett here on behalf of, well, EHI is my client. But anyway, we're in agreement with the conditions and ask for approval. It is 13 townhouses and eight single-family homes, and I ask for approval of the waiver for the street spacing as well. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Does anyone want to speak on this application? I don't think so. I'll bring it back to the commission for a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move, if there's no discussion, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2428, Preston Edition Subdivision. Oh, wrong one, sorry. Wrong one, wrong one. Gosh, try again. I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2434, South End Park. Okay. And then I guess the waiver is a separate. Yes. Thank you. And a second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, let's vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. All righty. Davis. I move that we grant the waiver of land subdivision regulations for PLN-MJDP 2434 for reasons outlined in the staff report. Okay. We have a motion second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Please vote via Granicus. All right. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Ready. So now that that should end our public hearing meeting for today and we will move into our work session. And we have Mr. Chris Taylor, he's up for the Urban Growth Master Plan update. Chris, how you doing? All right, how are you? all right is everybody okay we nobody needs a break move ahead all right do you need a break are we good plow ahead all right thank you so i appreciate uh you all letting us add this to the end of your work session today we have another work session next week where the consultant will be in to go over the draft concept plans and that's that's a meaty topic that it was going to have a lot for you all to absorb and we have some upcoming public input events around that over the next few days that we've coordinated and wanted to give the public the opportunity to give you all some early feedback on that before the consultants come next Thursday it's a little unusual for us to bring something forward publicly that the Planning Commission hasn't looked yet and we've made it clear that these are early drafts but we felt that on at this level it was really important to start getting some of that public input get some feedback and then be able to report to you all at your work session next week sort of where we are in that and what we've already started to hear but for today we wanted to talk a little bit about infrastructure funding and I really didn't want to put two items on the on the agenda for next week with the master plan so appreciate giving a little time today to talk about this in many ways i think what we're going to talk to you about today is is probably going to not provide a ton of answers and is going to identify a lot more questions but we needed to get started sort of talking about some of this and and hear some of your all's thoughts and some and hopefully for you all to hear some of our thoughts and things that we're looking into but just so everybody knows the land use master plan is typically about projecting growth in accordance with a policy vision for us the policy vision is outlined in the comprehensive plan it's about establishing a framework for future development to follow that and to provide guidance for the property owners the developers and the appointed and elected decision makers throughout that process but it's a time period where we also identify you know important questions and we make some recommendations for next steps that are going to fall beyond the planning commission's authority but they're critical to the success of the master plan so in particular elements involving the expense of providing you know new infrastructure they require us at this stage to evaluate how the urban county government at the highest levels has traditionally funded infrastructure and even more importantly discussing how we're financially able to do that going into the future i mean we know that development is going to pay for the initial construction of most new infrastructure however maintenance and the provision of associated services those you know persist forever and so the question of infrastructure funding is not solely about financial mechanisms for for construction and for developers it's the government has an equal or greater financial obligation that requires some consideration. So all that is to say, we're still in the early stages of gathering information, you know, identifying costs and structural elements that the government needs in order to manage infrastructure investment on the front end and for the long term. So a couple things we're going to talk about here today. We're going to talk a little bit about a little context and table setting, some recent history and current practices, and then we'll look a little bit at the examples provided to you by the sub consultant in the memo that we've handed out to you today and then a very high level discussion of one option that we're currently looking into so just a reminder of where we're at right now in this process we have until december 1st to get a master plan adopted we are sitting here around task five right now drafting the conceptual plans for the five set for the five areas and starting some of the public engagement and stakeholder meetings around that and you can see task seven gets into the you know identifying costs and the funding strategies just so you know what the master plan said on this topic it was to identify innovative funding mechanisms for infrastructure provide a comprehensive analysis for the cost associated with construction and maintenance and so this is sort of the the extra step above and beyond what we've typically done in the past we've really only done one master plan for new development and that was in 96 but then also to identify funding mechanisms public-private partnerships sort of identify what some of those funding approaches might be and then in the consultants response and their scope they identified that in task seven and it shows up as in October but I can tell you that it's it was immediately when we started this project the first piece that we've started working on behind the scenes with them and letting them know how important this was it could not be something we just started talking about in October and expect to be ready to move forward with something and so we've been having these conversations with them and as you can see you have a may 15th dated memorandum so we've had this now since may 15th it's it's sort of like when someone explains quantum entanglement to you and you go what do i do with this what do i do with this knowledge i we've been given this and we have to absorb what these things mean and who implements them and it's not planning in its entirety we're not going to be one organization responsible for implementing and managing this type of program and so we've had to take some time to have some conversations about what this memo means what some of these options mean and and it raises other questions particularly around what is needed infrastructure how are we going what are the things that we're going to need to cover in this in this program We'll have to cover obviously our transportation issues, our primary roads like the boulevards, major collectors, things like that, sidewalks, bike lanes, utilities for all the different things that go into making the community. But then there's some social infrastructure pieces like housing that we want to be able to include in an infrastructure funding program. We want to be able to consider how much the need for housing and different types of housing that the market may not provide meets an infrastructure need for economic development. And so if we can broadly expand what we consider and have typically considered in the past as infrastructure, then we start getting a little bit more creative about the funding mechanisms to support that. But I think it's important to back up a minute and talk a little bit about the Ex-Action program which is and sometimes it's the is the elephant in the room that we've heard that is something that we would like to not repeat but there has been elements of that that have been very successful and then there's also been lessons learned um the exaction program you know it identified it needed system-wide infrastructure like boulevards and regional detention facilities that was something that we had not done through infrastructure development in the past previously it was it was piecemeal um you know it provided cost estimates it created a system of debits and credits for providers and users of infrastructure and it was predominantly constructed by private developers but the program was administered by the urban county government but structurally you know we did not set up sort of the internal government structure to support that system over a long much longer timeline than i think maybe we expected at that time so again tracking the debits and credits the maintenance of the rate tables you know we didn't have a process built in to evaluate new projects and new needs and then it didn't adequately acquire parkland and so we have a real gap in the expansion areas from 96 for our parkland but the lessons learned about how we sort of arrived at that is we we don't have the coordination of a typical infrastructure funding program that most cities our size have it needed dedicated cross department staff to ensure program compliance and modernization and that it was being kept up with and so the policy review document that you have in front of you, you know, it contains funding mechanisms from across the state and from the country and under a variety of frameworks. Innovative is a very subjective term, what might be considered standard practice in many places, you know, in a city that's never done it, it's pretty innovative. But all of these represent potential options that could be part of a final recommendation. Each one, you know, it needs further review by our law and our finance departments as well as, you know, the community engagement aspect of it. Lexington has historically, at least prior to 96, let development build infrastructure on a piecemeal basis using a developer construction and dedication system. After 96, the exaction program modified that system in order to provide those system-wide improvements that I mentioned. But there have been other examples specifically where the government has built the infrastructure on the front end with a reimbursement system to cover the cost of that investment and development later on. And so just, I don't know how much any of you are familiar with some of these other programs, but in 1986 we had development of an OPSS, the Outer Perimeter Sewer System. It was similar to a capital improvement program. It identified 22 needed facilities and the associated cost projections. It established design standards and parameters, and the urban county government and the developers built those facilities. Developers paid user fees as they accessed that infrastructure. And really the only issue we've had in the decades of implementing that infrastructure program was an interpretation on how we calculated interest. And that's really been in the last five to ten years. But that's around just one piece of infrastructure. So it's one isolated infrastructure program. The EPA consent decree, the remedial measures program, that's a comprehensive, it has comprehensive data and tracking protocols. So there's a CTIMS website where you can track every project. The capacity assurance program is very transparent with all of the information and where we stand in the different sewer sheds as projects get completed. You know, those projects are identified. They're bonded, so they identify a funding source, and then they're constructed by urban county government. And so the funding is provided through grants and development fees and sewer fees. And then the MPO has their transportation improvement program, and really that's an implementation plan for their master plan, for their comprehensive plan. And so their TIP program, you know, it identifies and ranks project priorities. It identifies design, right-of-way, utility, construction. It has a policy committee, so there's your public engagement aspect. It has local elected officials on that policy committee. They review and approve projects. Public participation and engagement is all part of that. And so what all three of these examples highlight is that infrastructure funding programs, even within the existing urban county government they succeed and have been sustainable over long periods of time you know when the government has a pretty detailed strategic plan in place to ensure plan implementation from the very beginning and so i think one of the things that we wanted to sort of i guess break the seal on discussing and that we have been working with you know the administration and the department of finance is the development of an infrastructure funding plan that mirrors the typical process that other cities our size have. An IFP would have the process rigor of the MPO's tip and have the transparency and the staff support resources structurally inside the Government of Water Quality's Remedial Measures Program, you know, and the flexibility to support developer construction and government construction of those projects like the OPSS system. This type of program would fall under the umbrella of the city's already existing capital improvement program that would help us have a better picture of what the forecasted impact of projected growth and new development would be for construction, but also for the future budget years and as far as maintenance and ongoing services is concerned. It would also provide potential paths forward for other funding opportunities, not limiting everything in this area in these five areas to a single impact fee or a system development charge on which the whole plan rises and falls and we feel like that's a real opportunity to improve upon you know something we learned in the last last round of expansion but it's important to point out that that an ifp in itself does not fund construction it is not a funding mechanism in itself it is a strategic plan it is a process for identifying funding typically through bonding and various sources and types of bonds and those funding sources. It affords both the government and developers an option to build needed infrastructure. But throughout the rest of the summer and the fall, we're going to continue to update you all and talk about this and how these efforts are progressing and who we're hearing from and what appears to be sort of in the realm of possibility. and part of task seven is also identifying cost projections for infrastructure and i'll go ahead and caution you now we're talking about a lot of houses a lot of infrastructure there's going to be some big numbers and these aren't five-year projections these may be 25 30 year projections we don't really know but we know what the identified infrastructure costs can be in today's dollars with variances in place to sort of give us some wiggle room because we just don't know in some cases but that is another component of that task that we will be bringing back to you but since the components of this plan would require action by the urban county council you know we expect to have this body adopt we hope to be detailed recommendations and an implementation patient schedule for the next steps that would continue on almost seamlessly after the completion of this master plan. I realize that's a very sort of vague introduction to something, but when we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure, I think what we wanted to get to you all was that we have received some information. It is a lot to digest, and we are working with other folks in coordination with the government that we feel like again one of the biggest lessons learned from the from the last 30 years is that the other divisions of government that are involved in the finance the construction and the planning need to be working seamlessly together and so we're having those conversations they take some time and we wanted to update you on that so with that if you have any questions which i'm sure you do i'd be happy to try to answer them floor is open for questions mr owens you always got a question yeah i did um thanks chris uh you touched on something right at the very end uh talking about infrastructure costs may not be five years maybe 25 years out are these numbers going to be built in for what i'd call inflation costs as well i we are literally working on that discussion with the consultants right now on the scope of those of those costs. I think the thing we want to make sure we get is as solid of a projection in today's dollars to start with that we can do. And then we can make some general projections on inflation based off of historical trends. But that's always risky when you're looking into the future and basing it off of past precedent. So we're trying to be cautious there. we don't want to air wildly in those projections but also admit they are projections but that is part of how what we're looking into provides us an ongoing way to reevaluate those over time and it doesn't lock us into something where we have to where we only have we don't have any other options if that makes any sense just thinking back as far as exaction cost and so forth I I think when those started, obviously, in a 20, 25-year time span, those numbers increased too. And I think some were left holding the bag, so to speak. Right. And the updating of the rate tables was an impact, was a factor in that. What about surability costs? Have numbers, any updated numbers come out on that? Yeah, I think Division of Water Quality had Stantec update their report, and we have added that to the supplemental materials on our website, and I can share that back out with the Planning Commission. They did modify slightly the numbers for the areas that were not originally included in their study. When the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission made some alterations, they had to refigure some stuff. We do have those numbers, and they, again, are in today's dollars. okay and you'll share them yes okay well they're already on the website i just i'll send them out to you also you'll have a direct link to them okay thanks thank you chris uh that's a lot of information pretty quick. I have some, I guess, questions because I think this topic is one of the challenges that we see even in current applications. And, you know, you touched on it with water quality, but some of the examples in this packet have to do with, you know, transportation and also just overall design in the way that we want our spaces to look. And when we're like, when we're looking at these neighborhood plans and we see opportunities, for example, for a single loaded street along a public green space. But, you know, we're asking the developer to build the full cost of the street but essentially sell only one side of the street in terms of lots. Not surprisingly, there's pushback on that kind of a thing. But it is the way that we want our city to look and we want our city to be designed. And, I mean, I think there's a lot of examples like that where we see we want more multifamily. So what's coming before us is multifamily surrounded by parking. And I don't know, maybe Larry can touch on, but my guess is if they go and ask for a loan for underground parking or a parking structure, Larry's going to smile. And, you know, so I guess all I'm saying is I really appreciate some of this thought. And, I mean, some of these things that I just gleaned really quickly where they talk about, like, resolving loan fund as a self-sustaining enterprise sort of that, you know, I mean, I think funding the city that we want people to build is essential. and I really, I'm glad that you are putting thought into that and working towards realizing that that's sort of a weak link in this, and I thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Any other questions, comments? Do you want Ms. Worth? Somebody else. Ms. Worth, you got it. I'm not sure I'm ready to ask this question but I'm going to go for it anyway. As I'm looking at this and I'm thinking about the things that some of us have been passing around, looking at linking our goals about energy and seeing things like outdoor parking lots with metal roofs with solar generation on top and divided highways with energy generation going down the middle how far out are we thinking in terms of as we go forward what we might do really differently from the way we do things now we're not that far out we're not there I mean we're not thinking that part right now honestly we're thinking about what is the framework that's going to give the government the ability to do some of these elements, like Mr. Mickler said. The 96 expansion created something new and something innovative for Lexington, but it was also the only method we had at that point really to finance it unless the government stepped in and did it through our ad hoc process. What we would like to build in is something like the Transportation Improvement Program where there's a policy committee and you're reviewing your policies on a five-year, two-year strategic plan cycle, you know, it's on that one slide with sort of the rotation there is, you know, it never stops evolving. Good Lord. Okay. Yeah, so it never stops evolving. It never stops getting reprioritized over, you know, a 25-, 30-year period. The transportation improvement program just in the last six months has taken the fact that we're doing something around Parker's Mill and adding that to their program to start evaluating. Does it go into the next one or two years? Maybe not, but it goes into the years three, four, and five. So that sort of nimbleness and then to identify your funding sources and your project prioritization as you go, I think is really important. And so the ability to do that for these five areas, not all five are going to develop at the same time in the same time frame. And so the government may have to make some hard decisions about where it wants to invest its dollars based on where development is ready to occur and where it's not ready to occur. And so we want to give the government the tool there because we have a tremendous financial obligation here as well. what we're doing for future budgets has a big impact based off of the decisions where developers might do new infrastructure construction today. So trying to coordinate those into some sort of strategic process is really, I think, what we're talking about as being the value added to this master plan over the previous one. I need a little clarity because I've been trying to skim through the report on a couple of things. And I was particularly, as I always do, talk about affordable housing and what it says, of course, that affordable housing development primarily has to have the general same impact fees as does commercial. Then you go on to say somewhere in the report that there's a possibility in some states that they've wavered that fee. But then you go on to say it's not clear whether Kentucky is one of those going to be one of those states. So my question from you all's perspective, are you all going to promote, look into, review as to what could be done about that? Yes. And I think I tried to skim through that on one of the previous slides. We've got to further evaluate with the law department just which one of these options are statutorily available to us in Kentucky. There's things mentioned for Louisville Jefferson County. There's things mentioned for Berea and Versailles. But again, there's all sorts of innate differences between each of those communities, and we've got to vet them each through the law department and take stock of that. And that takes some time. Yes, we are. Okay. I got about 50 other questions, but I'll wait. Okay, that's fine. We'll even wait. Send him an email. Okay. Any further questions? Yes, sir. Chris the draft presentations next did you say next week yes next Thursday's planning commission work session okay and did you say you're rolling it out yes we will have a public meeting at the senior center from 2 to 7 on Monday we'll be there most of the day we've advertised that done the press release done the full the full thing social media promotion I'm just curious why would you be taking it to the public before you bring it to us and that is because we it is likely that you will hear a lot of feedback on that and we thought it would behoove us to start having some of that discussion ahead of time and as i said it is unusual for us to not bring that to you all when we get them friday from the consultant we will send them to you all so that you have them as soon as we get them but in terms of a presentation we're going to start letting the public give us some feedback on that as soon as possible okay i think just so we're all clear we're on a very compressed timeline here so okay thank you okay okay mr taylor i think uh clear to go for the day thank you thank you appreciate it appreciate your time mr duncan Thank you Mr. Chair, and just want to punctuate that there is a public input meeting on Monday and the planning commission is invited to that. You are part of the public, so if you all want to come and overhear what the people are saying about the plan, you're welcome to do so from 2 to 7 at the Senior Center on Monday the 15th. And then as Chris said, we will be presenting those formally to you. The consultants will be here to do so on Thursday the 18th back in the Phoenix building at 1.30 at our regularly scheduled work session. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. The meeting's adjourned.