Music We miss Bruce is coming. Thank you. Do the other stuff. 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 do would like to move an item up on the agenda. Today is on the agenda page two, I mean page ten, 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. That was 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 will 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's Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you'll turn in the agenda to page seven, Item H, PLN, MJDP 24-38, SP, Gross Subdivision. 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 8th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, second 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, Mickey Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for a 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 the 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. Floor is open. We're in motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN-MJDP 24-47. 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 items to bring to your attention. Yes, sir. On page two, at the bottom under development plans. Major development plan 23-50, Wolfram 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 only 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. Boxdale. 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 via Granicus. And Mr. Chairman, I have another one. Keep it going. 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 PLNMJDP 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, election of officers and get the motion for that and next would be item B as well soon 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 and parliamentarian Judy Worth. 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 the chair of Ian Larry Forrester, vice chair Zach Davis, secretary Robin Michler, and parliamentarian Judy Worth. Okay. Second. We have a motion and a second by Ms. Barksdale. If there aren't any further discussion, please vote via Granicus. I guess. All righty. Yes, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, let the record show that that was a unanimous vote and that we had that 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 time. So I need a, that's an action item for 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. we and we have a second by miss worth any further discussion okay please vote via granicus all right that motion passes as well majority thank you so miss 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 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 we'll go ahead and present it and then again of course if any of the planning If any 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 Iron Works 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 Gulf View Estates, and that's for property located at 802 and 804 Gulf View 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, PLNMJDP 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. So 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. Mickley. 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 Villagranicus. Mr. Chairman, I will support the motion, however I disqualify myself on the Lee Thomas Mills application or a plan. Okay. 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'll 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 Councilor and Lions is now being heard, I would ask if it's possible, is it available beyond 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 Lions Incorporated Property. As with the other agricultural subdivision that we had earlier, this requires posting of a sign on the property to notify, and 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 plat. It does require a sign, an affidavit, just like the previous one, on this as well. The subdivision plat that you see is to subdivide the parent tract. Here we have Ironworks 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. And they have access shown on these lots, existing access. One of those that we questioned is a shared access. And in that case, what staff would anticipate is once this plan 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 Transit 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 a subdivision if there's no public infrastructure. And there's not. Not building a road. Sometimes, as you're aware, we'll get an agricultural subdivision, they'll build a road. Tallon 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 talent in this case there's no such infrastructure required so again we bring it to you as a as an agricultural plat and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff have any questions for staff yeah clarify for me on on number nine it says here possible sinkhole. I'm sorry, number nine, resolve shared access on lots two and three? Yeah, I think it is. Yeah. 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 sinkhole. I know, but you got down here possible. Well, they've been identified on a map, but no geotech has been done. Okay. So they appear to be sinkholes based on mapping. I got you. Yeah. But, again, no geotech is done, and when you've got lots of room, it's better just to pop in. 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. Okay. It's all, yeah, they've been identified on the various proposed plans. 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. You don't? 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 um can you i just want to make sure i'm seeing this right can you walk me through that property boundary between um the proposed track one and track two i'm sorry i missed some of that uh mr mcclure can you walk me through maybe with the that on that property boundary between track one and track two uh it's hard to see isn't it i like it i can see it it runs down to there son of a dog led part on the back of it it runs through the flood plain 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, it 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, but 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. 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. Mickler. 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 Mount Horro. It's a dangerous road now. We've lost mirrors off trucks. I've seen people almost hit bicycle riders or they come over the hills, middle of the road, a lot of construction traffic, a lot of dumpsters. When you add all this construction, it's going to be really tough on the people that live on Mount Horro. It's going to be a little bit unsaventant. You can see this, the only way they can access those is straight off of Mount Horro. If it were one driveway in that split off, it wouldn't be so bad, but 16 individual would be tough. 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 cross 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 for 17 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, Stacey Arani. Hi, Stacey Arani. I also, I 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. 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 um i'm not gonna beat it over the head but i would just say the same things um just that the the danger of it we drive our horses down there um every day to go to the horse park and people drive way too fast anyway pulling out of our farms already treacherous that's not what we're here for but 11 more driveways um i just think would be 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. Keeley, you want to come back up, 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? 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, these are farms. So any construction out there would be farm construction. It would be a barn, it would be a house. People are lived. But that would be it. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, do we have any questions, comments? Ms. Boxdale? Oh, okay, okay. Anybody? 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 and 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 safety checks put in. Pretty much as Mr. Martin said, traffic engineering would have to 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 and close this portion out. I have a question. 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 that move a driveway somewhere else? 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 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. It's 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 their property. Yes, that's... David, could I add your traffic engineering? So, yeah, when they come in, whichever lots sell off, someone may buy multiple lots, but either way, they'll come in and we'll try to site. They're not just going to be able to put it wherever they want, so we'll try to get the location with the most sufficient site distance, and there may be even two relatively close to one another if that's the most ideal location. But with 750 foot, and it is a rolling landscape for sure, with 750 foot, generally that does offer some avenue to find one that meets all our site distance recommendations. And David, can't you require signage as well? Hidden driveway, short, that sort of thing. Correct, there's things like that we can do. 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. Can I make a suggestion? Hold on one second. I was going to make sure, are you done? David, you good to go? Okay, yes ma'am, you can. 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. Okay, thank you. All right. If there aren't any further comments or questions from commissioners, 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 a 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, Spikos 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. With Castle of the Lions, 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 of 40 acres, which is within our regulations. There's not a thing that would be done today that says that someone could not come in and buy all 1,000 acres tomorrow. I don't think there's any plans right now as to what might take place. This is more estate planning just like Spy Coast did. Myself, I'd like to say keep it 1,000 acres. It takes a significant sum of money for somebody to be able to do that. It may be, 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 gonna move for approval of plan FRP 24-20 Castle and Lions Incorporated with the nine conditions as presented. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Do we have a second to that motion? Okay. Second. 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 via Grant. Yes. Where are we? Well, if it comes up. 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, 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'll 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 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 forward 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 the applicant has an agreement with the city for an encroachment because within this little area here of the Georgetown Road right-of-way 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. Am I getting that right? There we go, I'm sorry about that. This, 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. 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 that 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 parkings. so we'd 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. My answer's 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 landscape 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 copy of the revised we did a revision to the adaptive reuse as far as how it's written and then 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 can keep the condition of I'm looking for there's a condition for being adjacent to multi path 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 we 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, I mean, essentially the problem is, is the problem hypothetical or are trains actually coming through there? There are trains running through there. Through 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 one? 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. Or 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. Like, 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 a parking lot right now. It's paved. It's paved, yes. It's paved. Now, who paved? Somebody asked, is it still active? That piece is not actively used by trains, but- The railroad, well, okay. The railroad is certainly active at the- The railroad is certainly active going through there. that is true and there's a d and the whole thing is is she has a property line right there now you're crossing that property on onto somebody a else's property part of the issue here is your crossing to somebody else's property whether it's yours or minor it's the railroad's property so we want to make sure that they don't stack a whole bunch of cars in the railroad 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. Thank you. 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 is 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 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 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 a hundred 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 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 i'm sorry um that's okay um thank you uh ms jones the building i guess it's 620 west 3rd 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 i don't know when it did come to us in subdivision but i didn't we've been postponed a bit so a bit okay what 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. We don't want to have a vacant structure. I'll comment on that. 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. I'm not sure what could be done there. you know 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 to go i don't know the exact years because i wasn't the person that took care of those things yeah that's okay well you know that's fine i i'm i'm just curious uh you know i i think it's time to put something new in there just my thought okay do we have any further questions for miss jones okay thank you Thank you. Is anyone that would like to speak on this application? All righty. 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, it's two motions, right? Okay. The floor is open. Mr. Mickler. Yeah, I move to approve PLNMJDP 24-28, the Preston addition subdivision Erica's trucker property, with the proposed staff conditions. Okay, thank you Mr. Mickler. Do we have a second? Okay, second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Okay, the motion passes unanimously. And then, Mr. Michler, 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. Second by Ms. Worth, please vote Villagranicus. 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 in the 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. Mickler, 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. 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 right. 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, motion passes unanimously. 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. Christi.