# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - August 8, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 8, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6181 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6181?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-08-08 - **Last revised**: August 8, 2024 - **Length**: 10,512 words - **Speakers**: Chair, Clerk > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on August 8, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed 12 agenda items during the session, with the majority of business being postponed to future meetings. Of the 12 items considered, 10 development and property amendments were postponed, while 2 items received approval: the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision Amendment and the Lexington Senior & Therapeutic Recreation Center project. The commission conducted 15 motions and votes throughout the meeting, and no public comments were heard during the session. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on August 8, 2024: • Larry Forester • Zach Davis • Judy Worth • William Wilson • Robin Michler • Graham Pohl • Bruce Nicol • Johnathon Davis (arrived late) • Mike Owens **Absent:** Barksdale **Late Arrival:** Johnathon Davis Nine members attended the meeting, with one member absent and one member arriving late to the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 15 formal votes, with most items receiving unanimous approval or postponement. **Administrative Items** The commission approved the July 11, 2024 minutes by a 7-0 vote with 1 abstention [timestamp: 00:30]. Motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Robin Michler. Voting in favor: Larry Forester, Zach Davis, Judy Worth, William Wilson, Robin Michler, Bruce Nicol, and Mike Owens. Performance bonds and letters of credit were unanimously approved 7-0 [timestamp: 01:30]. Motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Graham Pohl. **Development Postponements** Multiple development amendments were postponed unanimously with 9-0 votes: - **PLN-FRP-24-00026** Sky View Farms Property amendment postponed to September 12, 2024 [timestamp: 03:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00064** Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) amendment postponed to August 22, 2024 [timestamp: 05:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00038** S.P. Gross Subdivision amendment postponed indefinitely [timestamp: 07:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00055** Bryan Station Center, Phase 2, Lot 5 amendment postponed indefinitely [timestamp: 09:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00056** Red Mile Mixed-Use Development amendment postponed to August 22, 2024 [timestamp: 11:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050** Wolf Run Industrial Park amendment postponed to September 12, 2024 [timestamp: 13:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00037** North Parkway Acres amendment postponed to September 12, 2024 [timestamp: 15:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00046** Givens Property, Lot 5 amendment postponed to September 12, 2024 [timestamp: 17:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00049** Collins, Orrell, & Wiggins amendment postponed to September 12, 2024 [timestamp: 19:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00052** NDC Property, Unit 3, Lot 3 amendment postponed to September 12, 2024 [timestamp: 21:00] **Approved Items** The consent agenda items were approved unanimously 9-0, excluding PLN-MJDP-24-00052 [timestamp: 23:00]. **PLN-MJDP-24-00040** Pleasant Ridge Subdivision amendment passed 9-0 with revised conditions [timestamp: 25:00]. **PFR 2024-3** Lexington Senior & Therapeutic Recreation Center was approved unanimously with staff recommendations [timestamp: 27:00]. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among commission members and the applicant. **Pleasant Ridge Subdivision Amendment** The primary point of contention centered on the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision Amendment, specifically regarding access requirements for Paradise Lane. The commission engaged in a heated discussion with the applicant about whether the development should maintain open access to Paradise Lane without gates. The disagreement involved multiple perspectives on traffic flow and safety considerations. Commission members expressed concerns about the proposed gating of Paradise Lane, advocating for open access to maintain connectivity within the subdivision and surrounding areas. The applicant, however, raised counterarguments regarding traffic patterns and safety implications of unrestricted access. Both parties presented competing views on how the access arrangement would impact the broader community. The commission's position emphasized the importance of maintaining open roadways for public access and emergency services, while the applicant's concerns focused on managing traffic volume and ensuring resident safety within the development. The discussion highlighted the ongoing tension between private development preferences and public access requirements in subdivision planning. The heated nature of the debate suggests significant disagreement about the appropriate balance between developer autonomy and community connectivity standards. The outcome of this contested item was not specified in the available meeting data, indicating the discussion may have continued beyond the recorded portion or been tabled for future consideration. ## Sky View Farms Property Amendment [timestamp: 03:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-FRP-24-00026, a property amendment for Sky View Farms involving the subdivision of an 80-acre lot into two separate 40-acre lots. Nicholas Jerdon served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The proposed amendment would divide the existing single parcel into two equal portions of 40 acres each. However, the item could not proceed as scheduled due to a procedural requirement. The applicant had not yet posted the required public notice sign on the property, which is a mandatory step in the subdivision review process. To address this deficiency, the applicant requested a one-month postponement of the hearing. The Planning Commission granted the postponement request, allowing the applicant time to fulfill the posting requirement. This delay ensures that proper public notification procedures are followed before the commission reviews the subdivision proposal. The postponement means the Sky View Farms property amendment will return to the Planning Commission's agenda at a future meeting, once the required signage has been posted and the appropriate notification period has elapsed. No substantive discussion of the merits of the subdivision proposal took place during this meeting due to the procedural issue. ## Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) Amendment [timestamp: 05:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-23-00064, the Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) Amendment. The proposed amendment would depict 66,070 square feet of commercial space and associated parking circulation. Matt Carter addressed the commission regarding this item. However, the applicant requested a two-week postponement of the discussion. The commission granted the postponement request, and no substantive discussion of the amendment's merits took place during this meeting. The item will be rescheduled for consideration at a future meeting. The Belmont Farm development amendment will return to the Planning Commission agenda in two weeks for full review and discussion of the proposed commercial space and parking layout modifications. ## S.P. Gross Subdivision Amendment [timestamp: 07:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00038, the S.P. Gross Subdivision Amendment, which proposed to redevelop the site for a gas station kiosk and pumps. Matt Carter addressed the commission regarding this application. However, the applicant requested an indefinite postponement of the item before any substantive discussion or presentation could take place. The commission granted the applicant's request, and the S.P. Gross Subdivision Amendment was postponed indefinitely. No further details about the proposed development, site location, or reasons for the postponement were discussed during the meeting. The item will need to be rescheduled for a future meeting date to be determined by the applicant and planning staff. ## Bryan Station Center, Phase 2, Lot 5 Amendment [timestamp: 09:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00055, an amendment for Bryan Station Center, Phase 2, Lot 5. The proposed amendment was intended to depict development plans for Lot 5 within the Bryan Station Center development. Matt Carter served as the key speaker for this agenda item. However, before any substantive discussion could take place, the applicant requested an indefinite postponement of the matter. The commission granted the applicant's request, and the Bryan Station Center, Phase 2, Lot 5 Amendment was postponed indefinitely. No further details about the proposed development or the reasons for the postponement were discussed during the meeting. The item will remain on hold until the applicant chooses to bring it back before the Planning Commission at a future date. ## Red Mile Mixed-Use Development Amendment [timestamp: 11:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00056, an amendment to the Red Mile Mixed-Use Development. The proposed amendment would depict a new hotel and entertainment building and revise the parking circulation for the development. Matt Carter spoke regarding this agenda item during the meeting. However, the applicant requested a two-week postponement of the item, and the Commission granted this request. As a result, no substantive discussion or presentation of the amendment details took place during this meeting. The item was postponed to allow additional time for preparation or to address any outstanding issues before bringing the Red Mile Mixed-Use Development Amendment back before the Planning Commission for full consideration. ## Wolf Run Industrial Park Amendment The Wolf Run Industrial Park Amendment (PLN-MJDP-23-00050) was briefly addressed during the meeting [timestamp: 13:00]. The proposed amendment seeks to depict an RV and boat storage facility within the industrial park. Landon Sallee spoke regarding this agenda item. However, the applicant requested a one-month postponement of the discussion, and no substantive debate or presentation occurred during this meeting. The item was postponed as requested, with the discussion to be rescheduled for a future meeting date. ## North Parkway Acres Amendment [timestamp: 15:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00037, the North Parkway Acres Amendment, which involves depicting the layout of buildings and parking for commercial use. Geisler Domigan spoke on behalf of the applicant and requested a one-month postponement of the item. No detailed presentation or discussion of the amendment's specifics took place during the meeting. The commission granted the applicant's request, and the North Parkway Acres Amendment was postponed to a future meeting date. ## Givens Property, Lot 5 Amendment [timestamp: 17:00] The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00046, an amendment to the Givens Property development plan specifically addressing Lot 5. The proposed amendment would depict the development of Outlot 5 for restaurant use. CESO, Inc. served as the key speaker representing the applicant for this agenda item. However, rather than proceeding with the scheduled discussion, the applicant requested a one-month postponement of the matter. The commission granted the applicant's request, and the Givens Property Lot 5 Amendment was postponed without substantive discussion or debate. No concerns were raised during the brief consideration of the postponement request, and no presentation of the proposed restaurant development was made at this meeting. The item will be rescheduled for consideration at a future planning commission meeting, allowing the applicant additional time to prepare their proposal for the development of Outlot 5 as a restaurant facility within the Givens Property development. ## Collins, Orrell, & Wiggins Amendment [timestamp: 19:00] The planning commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00049, an amendment to the Collins, Orrell, & Wiggins development project. The proposed amendment would add a car wash facility to Phase I of the development and revise the locations of both parking areas and dumpster placement within that phase. EA Partners, representing the applicant, addressed the commission regarding the proposed changes to the previously approved development plan. The amendment represents modifications to the site layout and use mix for the first phase of construction. However, before detailed discussion could proceed, the applicant requested a one-month postponement of the agenda item. The commission granted this request, postponing consideration of the amendment to allow additional time for preparation or refinement of the proposal. The item was postponed without substantive debate on the merits of adding the car wash facility or the proposed changes to parking and waste management infrastructure. The postponement means the amended development plans will return to the commission for review at a future meeting, giving the applicant additional time to address any outstanding issues or provide supplementary information. The Collins, Orrell, & Wiggins Amendment will be rescheduled for consideration at the commission's next available meeting date, pending the applicant's readiness to proceed with the review process. ## NDC Property, Unit 3, Lot 3 Amendment [timestamp: 21:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00052, an amendment for NDC Property, Unit 3, Lot 3. The proposed amendment involves expanding an existing church facility and revising the adjacent parking areas. Denham Blythe spoke regarding this agenda item during the meeting. However, the applicant requested a one-month postponement of the consideration. The Commission granted the postponement request, and no substantive discussion of the church expansion or parking revisions took place during this meeting. The item will be rescheduled for consideration at a future Planning Commission meeting. ## Pleasant Ridge Subdivision Amendment [timestamp: 25:00] The commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00040, an amendment to the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision to depict building and parking layout for a multi-family development. Matt Carter served as the key speaker presenting the amendment details to the commission. The proposed changes focus on establishing the specific configuration of buildings and parking areas within the multi-family development project. During the discussion, commissioners emphasized the importance of maintaining open access to Paradise Lane. The commission specifically addressed concerns about potential gating of the development, making it clear that access to Paradise Lane must remain unrestricted without gates blocking entry or exit points. The amendment represents modifications to the previously approved subdivision plans, with the updated layout providing more detailed specifications for how the multi-family residential units and associated parking facilities will be arranged on the property. Following the presentation and discussion of access requirements, the commission approved the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision Amendment. The approval allows the development to proceed with the revised building and parking layout while ensuring compliance with the commission's requirement for open access to Paradise Lane. ## Lexington Senior & Therapeutic Recreation Center [timestamp: 27:00] The commission reviewed Public Facilities Review PFR 2024-3 for the construction of a new Lexington Senior & Therapeutic Recreation Center on property located on Shilito Park Road within Shilito Park. Daniel Crum served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The commission examined plans for the new senior center facility, which would provide recreational and therapeutic services for Lexington's senior population. During the review process, commissioners raised specific concerns about two important aspects of the project: • **Landscaping requirements** - The commission discussed the need for appropriate landscaping around the new facility to ensure it integrates well with the surrounding park environment • **Transit access** - Commissioners emphasized the importance of ensuring adequate public transportation access to the facility, recognizing that many seniors rely on transit services The discussion focused on ensuring the new senior center would be both accessible and well-integrated into the existing Shilito Park setting. The commission appeared to prioritize making sure the facility would serve the community effectively while maintaining the character of the park location. Following their review and discussion of the landscaping and transit access concerns, the commission approved PFR 2024-3, allowing the Lexington Senior & Therapeutic Recreation Center project to move forward. The approval indicates the commission was satisfied that the project plans adequately addressed their concerns about site design and accessibility for the intended senior population. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the July 11, 2024 minutes - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-FRP-24-00026** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Sky View Farms Property amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00064** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00038** — postponed (9-0): Indefinite postponement of S.P. Gross Subdivision amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00055** — postponed (9-0): Indefinite postponement of Bryan Station Center, Phase 2, Lot 5 amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00056** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Red Mile Mixed-Use Development amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Wolf Run Industrial Park amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00037** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of North Parkway Acres amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00046** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Givens Property, Lot 5 amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00049** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Collins, Orrell, & Wiggins amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00052** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of NDC Property, Unit 3, Lot 3 amendment - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **PLN-MJDP-24-00040** — passed (9-0): Approval of Pleasant Ridge Subdivision amendment - **PFR 2024-3** — passed (9-0): Approval of Lexington Senior & Therapeutic Recreation Center --- ## Full transcript Music All right. Good afternoon. It is now 1.30, August 8th, 2024. Welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission subdivision items meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. First on the agenda, we have the approval of minutes for the commissioners. This is July 11th, 2024 minutes. The floor is open for a motion for the approval of those minutes. Ms. Worth? I'll turn the mic on. I move for approval of the July 11th, 2024 minutes as submitted. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Mickler. There's not any further discussion. Please vote via Granicus. Is he there? Okay, all right, that motion passes. It ain't working out. Next on the agenda, I would like to move a little further in the agenda to page three for the commissioners to get a motion of approval for the performance bonds and letters of credit. Okay, Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the, I'm sorry, the performance bonds and letters of credit as outlined on the memorandum for Mr. Duncan. Okay. For Mr. Fairchild, sorry. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Okay, seconded by Mr. Pohl. There are not any further discussions, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon, Commission. My name is Nick Jordan. I'm a surveyor for PLN FRP 2400026, Skyview Farm Properties. I'd just like to ask for a one-month postponement. I made a mistake and didn't get the sign out only by 11 days. It needs 14, so I'm in a month to have that out for the required time. I apologize. Okay, is that on page two of the agenda? Yes, sir, number one. Item one, okay. Or A, yes, sir. It's one month postponement? Please, yeah, everything's ready other than that. Okay, so that should put us at September 12th. Okay, thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move for one month postponement of PLNFRP 2426 to September 12th. Okay, we have a motion, do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Thank you. If there are not any more discussions, please vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Good afternoon, Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. I've got several postponements. If you turn to page 3 in your agenda, item B, PLNMJDP 23-64, Belmont Farm Citation Center. On this one, I'd like to get a two-week postponement to your August 22nd hearing. We had a meeting with staff earlier this week, and based on that meeting, we've got some things we need to work on, but we feel like we can have it ready by this hearing on August 22nd. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. The floor is open. If there are not any discussions, Mr. Pohl. Move to postpone PLNMJDP 2364 until the August 22nd meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Wilson. Okay. Please vote via Granicus. And that motion passes unanimously. Okay, and then on page four of your agenda, I'm at the bottom, DPLNMJDP24-83 SP Gross Subdivision. It's at 600-602 North Limestone. On this one, I'm going to ask for indefinite postponement. We've got some pretty major issues to work through and don't know how long this will take. Okay, thank you, Mr. Carter. Floor is open. Go a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Just a point of clarification. I think Mr. Carter said 00083. I think it's 83 or 38. 38. Okay. I'm dyslexic. Okay, we'll forgive you. I'll move for postponement of plan MJDP. Indefinite, thank you. indefinite postpone mjdp 24-38 uh sb sp gross company okay thank you sir ms seconded by mr davis jonathan davis uh please vote via granicus motion passes unanimously all right and then on page uh 10 of your agenda item pln mjdp 24 dash 55 can't get that one wrong 55 brine station center phase two uh on this one i'm going to ask for an indefinite postponement as well we've ran into some uh issues on whether or not we this use is even allowed so it it's possible it could require a zone change Okay, all right. Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I move for indefinite postponement of PLN MJDP 24-55 Bryan Station Center phase 2, lot 5. Second. Okay, you had a motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Okay, and then one last Last one, it's on page 11, item O, PLNMJDP 24-56, Red Mile Mixed Use Development. On this one, I'm asking for two weeks to your August 22nd meeting. And on this one, we just have some issues. We still gotta work through with staff, but we feel like we can be ready for August 22. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. The floor is open. For a motion, Mr. Pohl. Mr. Chair, move to postpone PLN MJDP 2456 until the August 22nd meeting. Thank you, sir. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. Thank you. Any more postponements or withdrawals? If not, Ms. Wade or Mr. Martin. Hello. Lane and Sally here on behalf of Ron Johnson for PLN MJDP 2350. Wolf Run. Page two. Yes, page two, sorry. We're just going to ask for another month postponement on that one. Okay. For the September 12th meeting. Okay. So we have a one-month postponement request. The floor is open. Mr. Poe. I move to postpone PLN MJDP 2350 until the September 12th meeting. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote for the Agranicus. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Staff has a couple more items to bring to your attention. Okay. On page four of your agenda, item C, Major Development Plan 24-37, North Parkway Acres amended. The applicant has requested a one month postponement. continuing to work on evaluating the sinkhole on the property. Okay. All right. The floor is open for a motion for one month postponement. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I'd like to move for a one month postponement for PLNMJDP 24-37 North Park Acres amended. Second. Okay, let your arm wrestle for that one. I give it to Mr. Jonathan Davis, he's a little bigger. And younger. And younger. Okay, we'll vote via Grinicus. All right, motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on the bottom of page six of your agenda. Item G, this is a major development plan, 24-46, the Givens property, lot 5. The applicant has communicated with staff to request a one month postponement on this plan as well. They're continuing to work through some issues with the B3 requirements on that property. Okay, thank you. Mr. Davis? Mr. Chair, I propose a one month postponement for appealing MJB 24-46 given property. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission on page eight, of your agenda item i this is a major development plan 24-49 the collins oral and wiggins property the applicant has requested a one month postponement on this particular development plan as well in order to evaluate the proposed use of a helipad on the car dealership okay all righty The floor is open for a motion for one month postponement. And Mr. Owens? Mr. Chair, I'll move for a postponement of Plan MJDP 24-49, Collins, Orrell, and Wiggins until September 12, 2024. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. The motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on the top of page nine, item K. This is Major Development Plan 24-52, the NDC property, Unit 3, Lot 3. This is the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church property. They've requested a one month postponement on this plan as they continue to work with staff on some issues with the parking requirements on that particular property. Okay, we got a motion, I mean excuse me, a recommendation for a one month postponement to September 12th. Mr. Chair, I propose a one month postponement for PLNMJD 24-52, one month postponement. Okay, thank you sir. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Mr. Owens, I think he won that one. All right, please vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes. That's all from staff. Okay, Ms. Wade. Thank you. We do have a consent agenda this afternoon. You will note, or I would ask you to note, that one of the items was just postponed, and that appears in our list as the fourth item page 9 item K for the NDC property so I won't read that on the consent agenda all of our consent agenda items today were recommended for approval by the subdivision committee and there are I guess five items so we'll read those out loud and if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have an item heard if you could raise your hand and we'll have the commission review that particular item. The first item appears on page six of our agenda, item F, PLNMJDP 24-41 for the Masterson Station Center. This is for an auto zone and it's an amended final development plan for property located at 2679 Lee's Town Road. Is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard? Okay. The next item appears on page 7, item H of our agenda, PLN MJDP 24-48 for High Lawn Subdivision, Block A, Lots 10 through 12. This is for property located at 1400 North Limestone. so anyone that wishes to have this item heard okay next item appears on page eight of our agenda item j pln mjdp24-51 for big brothers big sisters property also an amended final development plan that is property located at 1122 oak hill drive anyone present for this item okay Okay. Next, page 9, item L, PLN MJDP 24-53 for the Athens Property, LLC. And that is property located at 6270 Athens Walnut Hill Road. Anyone present to speak about that? Okay, and one more on the back. Page 10, sorry about that, item number M, PLN MJDP 24-54 for RML citation, also known as the Hillemeyer Interest Limited property, an amended final development plan, and that's for property located at 2640 Sandersville Road. I don't see anyone for any of our items on the consent agenda today, So unless the commission wants to hear any of these, we can take them all with one motion. Okay, and that's omitting PLNMJDP 24-52, correct? Correct. Okay, all right, Mr. Davis? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented by staff with the exclusion of PLNMJDP 24-52. Okay, we have a motion by Mrs. Zach Davis and a second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Please vote via grant. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So that should put us on page five of the agenda. PLN MJDP 24-40. Pleasant Ridge subdivision. And we have revised staff recommendations for this as well. Yep. Pretty good. Okay. Good afternoon. This is MJDP 2440 Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 127, amended. And as the chair said, we do have revised conditions on a peach color sheet. This property is located off of Liberty Road and Fortune Drive, which brings us into the entrance into the property. And then in the rear, we have access off of Paradise Lane, which they're showing a cul-de-sac that enters the rear part of the apartment complex. This is an apartment complex. We did a zone change not too long ago and then did a second zone change to include the second portion of the property. So now they're coming in with the whole piece of property and we have the first 11 conditions are our typical sign-offs. We had a condition, cleanup condition for addition of proposed and existing easements. They were showing lines and typically we like to see an easement with the width so we want to make sure that we get those correct. Delete note number 10 because they went ahead and they answered a question as far as the stormwater detention and so therefore that note can be deleted now. Addition, I'm sorry, denote property owner's responsibility for retaining wall. With the Liberty Road improvements that are going to be going along the front portion of this property. There's going to be a grade change from the road to the property for the development. And so it was agreed that there would be a retaining wall to be built. It's under the understanding that the state has asked the property owner to build that. So we want to make sure we have a note as to who is going to be responsible for maintaining that wall after it is built. We want to modify the entrance across from Fortune Drive to what KYTC has suggested. They're showing right now a median going through here, but with the state they had ideas of having a double lane with the turnout to the left, and so we need to make sure we have that revised. To pick the temporary construction easement for KYTC, you know whenever they're building a road they always have to have a little bit area to do that so we want to make sure we have that shown on the plan um denote timing of easement conflict resolution we have a there's an easement that's going through the building here and we're not sure where if they or if they've started the process for the release of that easement that might be where they're having to create a new easement so we need to show that new easement's location We had a couple discussion questions, discuss the improvements to Paradise Lane and timing of dedication of the cul-de-sac to public right-of-way. Remember we had discussion about having a second access point into this property because of the number of apartment units. The fire department likes over 100 dwelling units. They like to have a second access point, so they now have the access point with the cul-de-sac on the end on Paradise Lane. so we want to know when what improvements are going to be made to Paradise Lane and also with the cul-de-sac and when would this all be dedicated then the last discussion question is discuss open access to Paradise Lane and removal of gates I believe during our meeting subdivision committee meeting the other day we talked about not having gates on the rear portion of this and we thought thought it was agreed upon not to have gates and they have now come back and added the gate to this so that there there would be no access from Paradise Lane into this property it would be gated I know we talked with the fire department that was an issue so I'll leave that to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions Yes. Mr. Nick. Do you mind repeating what you just said, the last item that you discussed where you said you'll leave that up to us? What is that item? Can you repeat that? I meant we'll discuss the gate. Because they told us they would not put a gate on that cul-de-sac, that they would leave it open at the meeting, at the subdivision committee meeting. They had told us that they would leave it open, and they would add a note that said there would be no gates added. So we want to see that there's no gates added to Paradise or up on Liberty Road. And so we'll see what the applicant has to say as to why they feel they need to have those gates, since it was agreed that that access was going to be opened at the committee meeting last week. Okay, and so which item is that? That was number 19. 19. No. Discuss the open access to Paradise Lane and the removal of the gates. They added gates to it. You got the revised? There's no discussion. 19. Thank you very much. Because I know that that was a, we were trying to refresh our memories on the decision that we made. when we were dealing with the development plan. That's why I wanted to clarify that. And when you look towards us, you said we'll leave that up to us. So I just want to make sure that that's what we're talking about, number 19. Thank you. Right. I wanted to have that discussion so that we can, because it was degreed on that we wouldn't have them. So I don't know if this is the appropriate time for this, but we had a lot of conversation with the fire department Is this an appropriate time to talk about that or do we need to wait? No, I think you can absolutely ask Captain Lingle to come up and discuss that. I just wanted to refresh. I know the subdivision committee, we've talked about this plan now for at least two months. But for the zoning committee, you may not be aware or remember that when the zone change did go through, a note was put on here that we would find a way to have a second an open secondary access and that was to address the neighbors concerns that we had several citizens come from wilderness road that were concerned about how they access liberty road and the backup that already exists and the you know introduction of more than um i think 200 units here how that would impact you know travel on liberty road for them so just as a refresher about that so we were working through that issue i think with the applicant which is why we do see a cul-de-sac at the end of paradise and no access to wilderness but then the gate appeared this week so that's still i think in staff's mind a conflict with your previous discussion at the preliminary development plan stage so captain lingle do you want to join us local lingle division of fire just to kind of piggyback what tracy said when this plane was going through zoning decided that this was going to be open access either if it's on Wilderness or Liberty, or I'm sorry, not Liberty, but Wilderness or Paradise. And that's what we were talking about, full connectivity for the residents to be able to get out to Liberty Road for a lighted intersection. Because when they, the only access point to Wilderness now, it's a quirky kind of hard right, hard left out. But I'll be more than happy to answer any questions, if I can. If you have any. I do have a question. Yes, sir. My mind is being refreshed from the original time that we viewed this plan, and I think that I was the lone nay vote. And with that being said, would this plan without the note that we added as an additional note on the development plan, would this work to fire safety's requirements if there was not the note to add a secondary access? So if I understand the question correctly, we need a second access point for the fire code over 100 residents. So between 101 and 600, you need two access points. And that's not only for an apartment, but even for a residential single family. so the there was discussion about the gate so the gate is an acceptable option but the way the discussion went was we wanted to open access fire is all for open access the gate is approvable we support access so we'll be able to get there the question was because we do talk about access points throughout Lexington and all developments so I think the way if I remember the discussion was this is a good example of providing access to the residents to a lit intersection on Liberty Road to be able to get in and out I believe that's the way you answer the question that's correct but what I'm what I'm getting to is a gate would pass fire's requirement of secondary access yes it doesn't meet the intent of the note that was applied by vote by the Planning Commission on the previous ruling that is correct okay and fire also supported that note as it being open access instead of the gate not to confuse anything but they supported it fire supported it but it works but it works with a gate or without a gate Correct. You just voiced support of a secondary access for the public? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair? Let me just chime in on this. I hope to confuse or clarify, I'm not sure which, but since this plan, and I think Tracy mentioned it, since this plan came back to us, the second time the discussion has always been to have open access and no gates on the backside with improvements to Paradise Road. As of our last subdivision committee last week, Captain Lingle asked for a note to clarify no gates on this. And to my understanding, that's what the commission decided and recommended was that they would be a condition that there would be no gates on this at this time. We need the open access. We've always talked about the connectivity in our community, so that's my understanding of this. I would just say that's my recollection as well. Thank you, Gavin. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. I guess before we talk about the gate, I'd kind of like to go through some of the other comments. In general, we're in agreement with most of these conditions. In 14, it says, denote property owner is responsible for retaining wall maintenance. Well, right now, we're still in negotiations with the state on where the retaining wall is going. So as we have it shown right now, it's three feet off the right-of-way because the subdivision committee, I was asked to do that. is still in negotiation, so it's not settled that that's where the wall is going to be. It may end up on the right-of-way. And because of that, I would just like to reword the note a little bit to say, resolve that before the plan is certified where the wall ends up. If it ends up on the right-of-way, the property owner is not going to maintain it. So I would just like to change that to resolve. The timing of the easement conflict, number 17, what that's about is there's a sanitary sewer. It's an existing sewer that runs over to the pump station. Let's see. There's a sewer that comes out of Paradise and then it runs over to a pump station over in here. So it hits this building, goes through it. When we develop this, that sewer will be relocated and so we'll have to release that easement. But we're not going to release it, first of all, until I know the plan's approved. so I'm not going to do it yet. It'll be part of the construction process. We will have to phase this because we're only allowed to build 100 units until we get the second entrance open and operational. So it'll be most likely the timing of when that sewer easement gets released will coincide with when the next two our next hundred and i believe 16 units come online we'll have it resolved by then so that's something we'll do it's just going to be later in the process and there will be a easement release process we go through in a plat dedicating easements. So hopefully that answers that question. Number 18, discuss the improvements to Paradise Lane and the timing of the dedication. As I just said, the applicant plans to build 100 units before he does any work or before he gets the paradise connection completed so we do have a note on the plan i think it's note 19 it says the timing of the construction for the connection of paradise lane shall occur no later than when 100 apartment units have been constructed and occupied so hopefully that addresses that comment. Now for item 19 about the gate. So the way this, I guess the way this developed was originally we had one entrance. We had it on Fortune Drive and I think Mr. Owens it was you that said, you know, with this many units 216 I would like to see an additional entrance because 216 units is too much for one and and so the need for it was because we had 216 units not because we're trying to get the neighborhood a place where they can get to the traffic signal so we've done that we've provided a second public entrance and for our residents it is a full open entrance meaning they can go in and out that entrance emergency services fire police ambulance can go in and out that as they please but the general public there's 80 lots there on wilderness road Paradise Lane there's 80 lots that has the potential of generating 800 trips a day will they all want to go through this I don't know but I'd say a significant amount would. Who's going to be responsible for the safety in this apartment with all those additional trips? Who's going to be responsible for the wear and tear they're doing on this? The maintenance, who's going to do that? Well, it'll be the apartments. The apartment will be responsible for the safety of the general public off-site traveling through our department our apartment community and they have no right to do it and as far as I know I don't know any place in the city where an apartment is willing to take on the responsibility of all the neighbors to let everybody go through your apartment and it just doesn't make sense I understand the neighbors would like access to the light. But I'll tell you this, it wasn't too long ago at the end of Woodward Lane, we looked at doing a development and at that time Woodward Lane did not want wilderness connecting. Let's see. I'm trying to think of the names of some of these roads. Checkerberry Drive, that subdivision didn't want connected. Wilderness Lane didn't want to connect to them. That was a possibility to have three ways in and out. And currently, each of those ones I mentioned has one way in and out. And that's what they wanted at the time. And guess what? They got it because they fought us on that other one. I don't know why we should fix their problem now and send them through an apartment complex. There's nothing good going to come of that. So anyway, why is the state not fixing Wilderness Road? They've been working on this. They've got the opportunity to make improvements. They're not doing it. I don't see how it's our problem to fix it. Anyway, I hope I made you think of a few different reasons why it's not a good idea. What we're proposing, again, it will give full access to the people in the apartment for safety. They need it a second way in and out, and they've got it. Emergency vehicles, they can go in and out all they want. but we don't want the possibility of 800 trips a day going through an apartment site. The driving lanes are 24 feet wide, parking on both sides. It's got speed tables throughout the site. It's not going to be a pleasant ride for everybody, and I just don't see anything good of coming with that, and I don't think it's necessary. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Do we have any questions for Mr. Carter? We've got a couple here. Go ahead, Mr. Mickler. You hopefully are aware that whenever we get these proposals, connectivity is one of the priorities in the comprehensive plan. And we often ask new developments to connect to adjoining street networks. And you do raise some interesting points, and the real way to improve this plan from that standpoint is to just make that a public road from Paradise all the way to the light. And so I think what I hear you asking is for us to turn this down and to send you back and make that a public road and address those critiques. Because as part of this zone change, we do require that be an open access. So is that something that you would consider, just going back to the drawing board and making that a true public connection to address that traffic through the apartment complex? No, I'm not. That's no, not at all. What you're asking for are requirements for a subdivision. What I'm showing you here is one lot being developed and the things you're talking about do not apply to this lot. I think if you look at what the subdivision regulations and the zoning requires, we're doing far more, far more than is required. I don't think we're required to do that cul-de-sac at the end of Paradise Lane. I don't think we're required to do improvements. I think we're required to have two access points because we have over 100 units and we do. I hear your requirement. I recall from the zoning, we heard from a lot of neighbors as well. You brought that up. you know they're on one access point to liberty and they have no signal and here you're asking us to approve at two hundred plus unit development that has access to their one unsignalized road but then provides no connection to them for the signal doesn't that seem like an imbalance to the neighborhood there We have one lot and I don't think it's, we're creating one lot. I don't think that's unfair to go by what the zoning allows us to do. And you're right, currently there's two, but when we're done, it'll be one lot. I mean, I see your point, but but what i don't see is i don't think you understand this is not a subdivision we're building this is one development one lot and the rules are different mr ellens thank you mr chair matt let me ask you this you know obviously you know as has been discussed when this came back to us since the word go we've we've talked and discussed and recommended the openness of that with no gates even in subdivision a week ago why are we just now coming back why are you just now coming back to say you want a Governor Gates. Well, after the subdivision committee last week, and I know last week I agreed to that note, but the owner, after talking to them after the subdivision committee, they said, you basically just killed our project. There's no national apartment community that would ever look at this property. That's the biggest reason right there. It kills the project. Let me ask you this. So now you're proposing a gate. You're saying that that's going to provide a second access for fire, even though fire really wants it open. We've talked about connectivity and so forth. but you're saying that the residents would have access through that gate? They would have full access. There's apartments all over Lexington with the same scenario. Angliana, there's much bigger apartment communities than this, that every entrance they have is gated. The people that live there are issued key fobs or there's a keypad for going in. As they exit, the gates just open, but entering requires the key fob or the keypad. The fire department and all the emergency responders have, through the, I believe it's the radio, it's called the click to enter system. and all they do is click their mic and it's on the click to enter system is on the same frequency that they're on and the gates just automatically open. You know, it's not a gate that's going to be chained shut. And one other thing is the entrance off of Fortune is not gated. So, or I'm sorry, off of Liberty. so i suppose people could come in and wander through the apartment and exit they just can't get they can't go the other way if they don't live there mr nickle i just i would like to make a comment when this was approved for a zone change It would have met all the requirements for approval if it met the second access point that met fire's requirements. Fire's requirements says it's okay to have a gate. There was a note specifically placed on this plan by the Planning Commission to require secondary access. That was above and beyond, or it was made by this plan. It was the Planning Commission's decision to do so. The reason I voted against the plan when it came through was specifically because that note was added. So I just would like to say again, the reason I voted no previously is because I thought that the second access that would be open to serve those on Wilderness Lane and not solely for the purpose of the residents and fire safety was too onerous of a note to apply on the development plan so once again that's the reason why I voted no on this plan even though it did meet the requirements I thought it was too much for the Planning Commission to ask to add secondary access for non-residents. David Philly, I'm through traffic engineering. So, it is true to say it's atypical to have, you know, to have that secondary access provided for, it gets explicitly saying it could be for the neighborhood. That being said, there is, it's pretty atypical for the development like this to have a dedicated traffic signal to it at the entrance. There's not, there are a handful of instances, but that's pretty, And if we go back in time, we could, we would maybe extend Codel Drive and where it would meet Fortune Drive. And that would have been probably a better solution, but we can't do that. So I, and for my opinion, my thought was that, that you, you implement the traffic calming elements within the parking lot as they've done. So it wouldn't be a particularly attractive route for those who use wilderness or live off wilderness trace or paradise lane. But in instances where maybe there was a collision or some instances that blocked it entirely, It would still be a secondary route that'd be possible and vice versa if there's a collision ever at Liberty Road Of course, they're providing that so That's the benefit of the additional benefit of the second access But my thought was again making it Less attractive outside of maybe the major peaks or emergency events Because again off-peak. It's it's not impossible to get out on the lunar and its trace It's really those peak hours that are where it gets difficult and so providing that as a potential remaining option but also making it to where those who do use it that aren't live there it's still safe and not particularly efficient I think that would limit your your exposure to keep those that non-residents using it it's a lot of different things but you got any questions about that in particular okay mr. Mucco yes so the secondary access that is the note that required secondary access provides a route that is as you said not particularly attractive for the wilderness neighborhood to drive through the parking lot to get the light during like during off-peaks is especially especially whenever there's not a lot of traffic on Liberty Road that wouldn't be it would be quicker to use wilderness trace that's what is what I was mentioning meant sorry i didn't mean to interrupt you no no once again this is why i did not like the note being added we're now creating a non-attractive potential secondary access to the light through a parking lot with speed bumps in it with significant potential for traffic accidents driving through a parking lot to get to the light. It just seems unusual, not preferred, and I don't think it's a very good idea. It's, again, it is atypical, but it's also atypical to have this development served directly by a traffic light in this way, with Wilderness Trace being where it is. And what I meant by unattractive, I just meant that the speed humps would calm the traffic, making it take longer to get to that signal. So if it's an off-peak hour, you're not going to take an extra 45 seconds to drive your way through a parking lot rather than using wilderness trace. But maybe if there's a blockage or there's massive traffic, maybe you would. But, yeah, ultimately, I think that is something, I guess, it laid at your all speed as far as the final decision. Okay, thank you sir. I didn't ask, do we have any citizens that would like to speak? I know, I know. Okay, bringing back the Commission for further conversations and I'm sure they're gonna be. Mr. Chair, let me back up just one, ask Matt another question. With your time and dedication that you were talking about you were saying the way understood it it the the improvements would be made at least with the 101st unit being occupied we can't get a CEO for more than I guess 100 units without having anything more will require all the improvements to be done including the easement released and you know the new sewers will have to be built and operational the storm system will have to be operational so yeah I hope that answers you if I may Mike I think I can clarify the note will have to be an an affirmative statement restricting the units to 100 total before any building permits can be issued for additional units contingent upon the construction of the required street and public improvements. We've done that in the past and it'll have to be phrased that way. But it's building permit, not occupancy. Well, that's- You wouldn't be investing in- That's correct. Building a building, right? investing in building the infrastructure the cul-de-sac first before you start building that 101 unit and that's we're good with that yeah yeah yeah okay thank you matt um mr i've got a question i would like to add one thing to that you go right ahead the building permits i agree but we would like to be able to have a land disturbance permit to be able to build all that infrastructure I suspect, and engineering could elaborate on this, you'll be allowed a land disturbance permit on your development plan, and you can put the pads in and everything else that you need, but you will not get a building permit for those individual buildings which will be identified. Correct. Yes. Thank you, Matt. A question for Tracy. I guess Tracy. Going back, since we're going back to the zone change and so forth, Wasn't there original talk about this, that Paradise would be made a public road? Paradise is a public road. So we've talked to the applicant, and since it's already an existing substandard road, the applicant can wait for the city to improve it. there's no, I don't know when that might occur. So they would only get their 100 units until Paradise is improved. Let me restate it then to clarify. Paradise to being public to Liberty Road. It is. To Wilderness, but to Liberty? Paradise is a very short segment, and it connects this property. So it terminates into the property, so we do need to address the termination of that street. And then it slopes up and touches wilderness. Then wilderness connects to Liberty. And wilderness is not substandard, just paradise. Yes, that's true. So the improvements would include widening. I guess there was or was not any discussion as far as from Paradise going through this development to Liberty being a public road. Oh, going through? Going through this development. I think we broached that with the applicant at one point. Tom and I are kind of making eye contact, and they immediately said that was not something they were interested in. And there are topographic issues on this property. so you know paradise you're heading up the hill there's just a low spot that divides the the development that they're going to have to grade and fill and work with the stormwater all through there so they were just they thought it wasn't something they didn't want to engineer and public cost was an element of that okay thank you Is there any further questions for the applicant or staff? Ms. Wirth? I think I have a question. I want to go back to something Mr. Carter said about this being an apartment complex and not a subdivision. So to planning staff, do we have any other examples where we have a public road coming into an apartment complex and exiting out to another road that would be an example of something that we're asking these folks to do? Not a good one. I can think of one in my neighborhood. We have. That does that. We have a neighborhood. Which one? In Childsburg, we have an apartment complex where you can enter one side and you actually can exit the other side. So there is a precedent, right? To a different public street that's not gated and people walk through there and drive through there. Yeah, it's not unprecedented. Okay, thank you. I'm looking at Larry just because he lives over there too. In terms of precedent, I guess looking at the map, it seems like Wilderness Road is a little bit unprecedented here, isn't it? where we have such a long strip that has both churches and residences on it that comes to an unsignalized intersection, which back in the day was on a quiet street and now is becoming a very busy street that they're about to make four lanes. And then we have a situation where this apartment complex would be getting a signal, but then that signal would, is it correct that that signal would be too close then for Wilderness in most circumstances to get a signal? I do think the Transportation Cabinet had stated they were not interested in installing a signal at Wilderness. Although it does have another road across, they're both, I think, substandard through there. They're not your typical local streets. I think the issue would be New Circle Road and Liberty Road intersection in that light in terms of spacing as opposed to with Wilderness Road. So we have a lot of unique circumstances because Nicholasville Road cuts it off on one side. The railroad cuts Wilderness off on the other side. Fully developed sort of approved cuts Wilderness off on the other side. And then this was built before New Circle Road. I mean, it's an old rural street. And so as Liberty gets widened with no opportunities for signal on wilderness, we're really risking boxing in a lot of activity with no sort of escape valve. Is that right? Yes, I think that's true. And that's why we considered making it open. The other thing I wanted, I don't think the zoning ordinance necessarily grants an applicant a gate automatically, right? It's part of the development and it's for the planning commission to decide if that's appropriate. Thank you. In my mind, I hear Mr. Carter's point that there's a lot of apartment complexes with similar access gates. Looking at that sort of map here of this sort of long area and this sort of really unique challenge that all those residents who are at our zoning commission or zoning hearing faced, and that that really makes this a good case for a sort of unique and unusual requirement, as sort of Mr. Nickel was noting. Okay, Mr. Mickler. I mean, I have a motion if nobody has any more questions. Okay. Do we have any more questions, comments, discussions? Before I close this portion out, bring it back to the commission for a motion. Mr. Davis, you got anything? No. Okay. Mr. Mickler? I would make a motion to approve PLNMJDP 24-40 with the staff recommendations with the following edits, I would change the recommendation number 14 from denote property owner is responsible for retaining wall maintenance to resolve responsibility for retaining wall maintenance. And I think that the applicant has indicated the construction timeline. So maybe we can just say, I think leaving that is, we're leaving the item 17 because I think they'll comply with that. And then we will change number 19 to provide open access to Paradise Lane with no gates. Okay. Okay. Do we? Yes, Mr. Owens? There were 18% of the closing? Well, I guess Mr. Carter, if I'm correct, he asked to remove the denote timing of easement conflict resolutions. 17, 18. So on 18, we change discuss improvements to Paradise Lane and timing of dedication of cul-de-sac of, I guess we would remove 18. I think the staff will want to review the note in a little more detail. I don't think it's quite ordered the way we think it needs to be. So if we could just resolve. Discuss to resolve improvements to Paradise Lane and timing and dedication of cul-de-sac to public right away. Yes, please. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second the motion. Okay, we got a second by Mr. Owens. Any further discussion to that motion? Mr. Chairman, just as a clarification, now what's the motion? Let me repeat that because I muddled my way through that. I would make a motion to approve PLN MJDP 24-40 with the following edits to change with the staff recommendations with the following edits. 14 would change to denote property owner is responsible to resolve responsibility for retaining wall maintenance. Number 18, discuss improvements to Paradise Lane and timing of dedication to cul-de-sac to public right-of-way would change to resolve improvements to Paradise Lane and timing of dedication of cul-de-sacs to public right-of-way. And number 19 would change, discuss open access to Paradise Lane to provide open access to Paradise Lane and with no gates. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. And it was reiterated again by Mr. Michler. Please vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes. All right, thank you. All right, so that'll put us on our public facility review, Lexington Senior and Therapeutic Recreation Center. all right good afternoon members of the commission Daniel always reintroduces himself but I think you all know me so the Lexington our PFR for today is for the Lexington senior and therapeutic recreation center and it is a project proposed by the city of Lexington and it's a combination of a project by division of senior services and also the division of parks and rec and the proposal here is to add this senior center and recreation center to the shillito park area the address will be 3360 shillito park road and the hope is to build a 26 400 square foot structure for this use so to orient everyone and Shillitoe Park is located off West Reynolds Road and west of New Circle, not New Circle, sorry, west of Nicholasville Road, but south of Man O' War. So this is kind of a zoomed in picture and we'll point to Reynolds Road here to the north. This dash line to the east of our site is the railroad. And then further to the south is the remainder of Chilloteau Park and then eventually you get to Manowar Boulevard. So zoning in the vicinity of our site it is single-family residential to the north between the site and Reynolds Road as well as residential to the west and that encompasses LCA their campus as well as park property to the east is B6P or commercial center zone I don't know I'm turning around habit right Tom commercial center zoning and that's Fayette Mall to the east and then I mentioned also to the south is still the rest of the park most of the park is surrounded by residential uses so if you've ever walked through the walking trail a lot of the areas have residential uses that back up to it but this particular site is bordered by the railroad and then the mall but directly to the north is fire station number 15. So at the entrance to the park you have fire station 15 as well as one of our bluegrass restoration reforestation projects and then the site this is about an eight acre site and that is where there's a proposal to build the senior center and the therapeutic recreation center so just a little bit more of a zoom in. Shillitoe Park Road is just really kind of an access road through the park and it connects the front to the back but there also is a pretty nice walking trail, a shared use path that runs directly along the frontage of their project. It does cross over and then carries on up to Reynolds Road and then through through the rest of the park so they are proposing again a 26 400 square foot structure it's about a one-story building with a partial basement for storage and then the site would will have 198 parking spaces 22 of those being handicap accessible and then about a third of them having the permeable pavers utilized and three access points from the site to shillito park road one for the parking lot at an existing intersection a second one for the front entrance drop-off loop and then a third one for access to the partial basement and really a service service entrance so i'm sure you remember with the public facility review the planning commission is asked to review proposals by government bodies to ensure that they're in agreement with the comprehensive plan of course this helps as we review other developments that are coming through the community we know the planning commission then knows where the new public facilities are going as well and making sure that those can interact in a safe and efficient way the commission has 60 days to review this so we'll we just review it by august 27th of this month let me see what else i need to tell you about the building itself will be equipped with offices classrooms a lounge area art room equipped fitness rooms and also group fitness rooms and then a large therapeutic fitness room or gymnasium and all the spaces will be available for use by citizens of fayette county the senior center obviously geared towards our seniors and then the therapeutic recreation portion geared towards the parks and recreation group that runs that program for the city in terms of the comprehensive plan the staff identified this area as an enhanced neighborhood place type and the development proposed as low density non-residential mixed use and that's the one of the ones that is most closely related to our basically non-residential land uses those place types and development types are encouraging really integration of mixed uses neighborhood serving projects and of emphasis is also connectivity and having multimodal access to our sites so for this particular community facility we reviewed the app or the the city's um architects information about the goals and objectives and the staff identified three main goals and objectives related to this particular project and the first one deals with providing a well-designed neighborhood and community and then encouraging neighborhood enhancing elements i think that the senior center and therapeutic recreation center would certainly provide neighborhood enhancing elements address community facilities at the neighborhood scale again this senior center will really serve this portion of fayette county we have another one already in idle hour and then three other satellite senior centers throughout the city and then the third one is working to achieve effective equitable and comprehensive transportation system and specifically making sure that all modes of transportation are available for all of our community facilities in terms of policies and implementation some of these ones apply to most of our community facilities but of note in this one was a specific support policy related to our senior center and that is in theme d support policy number eight and that was building on the success of the senior citizen center to provide improved quality of life opportunities for the largest growing population demographic and so there's a particular support policy and write up about expanding the senior center and and even noting that in the 2023 budget for the city that there would be work done towards a new senior center there were several place builder criteria that the apple or the project really hits on development should provide community oriented spaces and services obviously the senior center will do that making sure it's accessible pedestrian link with linkages to transit that was one that may need to be worked on development should be designed to minimize tree removal there is a tree stand on the property that does need to be removed for the building and parking but we have committed to replacing trees at a four to one ratio so any one tree that's removed they'll be planting for to replace those they are utilizing green stormwater infrastructure with the permeable pavements and the pavement in parking lot development should provide active and engaging amenities and again this is a space open to the neighborhood and any really citizen of Fayette County development should enhance well connected and activated public realm the park is already a public realm and and adding this new facility obviously makes it a more attractive place to go for our citizens and then lastly related to building orientation that if i go back you'll we will note that the building is situated to one end of the site and there is quite a bit of parking um on the the property so it has a bit of an odd orientation in terms of the road but the road off also curves through there in terms of staff review of those place builder criteria staff noted really two things that could be could be improved on the site one has to do with access to transit we noted that there is actually no transit in the vicinity it does run along nicholasville road but not along reynolds road and so the division well general services shared the concern with senior services and also lex tran about the potential for a fixed route in this area and really the the main concern is getting people there and that is possible via the wheels which is our paratransit service and allow them to do drop-offs right up to the front door but the staff would encourage senior services and parks and rec to continue to monitor the need for potentially a fixed route service in the area and continue to work with Lex Tran to see if that can be accomplished in the future and then the second recommendation has to do with the visual impact of the parking lot and again the orientation of the building is set at a not not necessarily parallel to the road and so the the visual impact of the parking lot is a bit greater than probably we would have suggested and so the staff suggests that there be some vehicular use area perimeter screening along that parking lot along the front to buffer some of the parking from the drive, the street that goes through the park. Overall, the staff finds that the expansion for services for seniors as well as those with disabilities in our community, so this particular center will fill a need, a needed programming and activity gap in this portion of the community and really it addresses a majority of the goals objectives and policies that have been set out for for the community i think that's it come on mr knicker you got a question i do have a question and we do have a question we do have general services here because they're um as well as parks and rec and senior services i do have a question um we do run across developments that in order to make the project successful like here some trees need to be removed and you said that you recommend a four to one replacement no no they offered a four they're they're working with the division of environmental services and that was their agreement that they came to that's what they indicated to me so there's a stand of trees here I just think that that's a great compromise and I would like to see more of that as we move forward. I think that was very- Now this site is not heavily treed, right? It's already an open space in the park. But a four to one replacement seems prudent and it's good to see that type of agreement's been made. Yes, they definitely met with the urban forester. Finish Mr. Nipper. for now. Oh, Mr. Mickey. I'm sorry. I do have a question on the parking lot design. Yeah. So you mentioned that you recommended the vehicle use sort of landscape screening that we otherwise would require of basically any development. Right. When I'm looking at this, since this isn't a traditional development plan, there's not like a tree canopy or any trees indicated. It doesn't look to me like it would meet our parking lot tree standards, but I can't really tell. So I'm kind of wondering, you know, we've talked a lot about the comprehensive plan in terms of climate change, heat island effect, things like this. And this looks like something very traditional. So the staff would recommend adding landscaping just between the road and the parking lot, but you are correct. This particular design doesn't meet our new standards, and we spoke about that yesterday, and so he may be able to answer some specific questions. I was hoping not to have you come up here. We were going to just vote, but it didn't work out. Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Meehan. I'm from EOP Architects. I'm the project manager for this project. Mr. Mechler, to address your comments, the plan that was transmitted along with these comments that were prepared about five or six weeks ago does not include our new planting, so you're not actually seeing the four-to-one tree replacement that we have designed for the site. And in fact, the concerns about screening the parking lot from choteau park road are uh an item of particular interest that we continue to develop since that time so there is extensive planning planting intended um let's see how does this work the top button will kind of there we go uh in this area at the northwest corner of the site we have sort of a large open area between Shiloh Toe Park Road and the parking lot that will be for surface retention of site drainage there are extensive planning plantings around either side of it in the space between Shiloh Toe Park Road and the southern portion of the parking lot approaching the building we we extended the line of existing trees that you see here and added additional plantings throughout the parking lot where you see islands that interrupt the rows of parking there's planting there's trees planted along in each one of those areas and we're continuing to have conversations with folks in the city about prioritizing plantings or sight lines for security cameras so it's an item that's still kind of in flux but we're trying to get as many trees on the site as we can and the four to one ratio is the low end of that not for trees that we remove. So. Well, thank you. I don't recall our comprehensive plan prioritizing sight lines for security cameras, but I do recall it really focusing a lot on the, you know, heat island and tree canopy. So I think that, you know, I understand the need to balance those, but I doubt you'll meet your tree canopy requirements if you just plant those islands as they are indicated now, and I think you will have a very unpleasant hot parking lot. So I would encourage you all to impose a little bit more grid and sort of a little bit more tree coverage as we would love to see the city sort of meeting its own requirements that we impose on developers for their parking lots. Of course. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Dillans? I think Mr. Mickler just said it as far as if the city's going to do something, but yet also ask the private sector to do it. We've kind of mandated that certain things get done. It's good to set by example. So anything you can do specifically, recommendation number two, if we can provide that, I think it would be great. Like I said, setting by example. Thank you, sir. Okay. Floor is open. I guess we just need to make a motion that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Chair. Mr. Owens. I'll move the FRP 20-4-3, 20-24-3, Lexington Senior and Therapeutic Recreational Center does meet the comprehensive plan. And we do support the two recommendations that the staff has provided. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there's not any further discussion to that motion, please vote via Grantis. Thank you. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Yes sir, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to make sure you all realize on the calendar this month there are two Planning Commission work sessions. And so we're meeting next week on Thursday, August the 15th in the third floor of Phoenix. We will be discussing some items that are not related to the urban growth management, but there are some other things that we need to get your input for and certainly to move around. And then again we'll be meeting in a Planning Commission work session on August the 29th, August 29th, 1.30 in the Phoenix Building, third floor. And we will pick up the Urban Growth Master Plan at that point and provide some more information about the status of that. And don't forget in the middle of that, there's a zoning hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for the reminder. The meeting's adjourned.