# Planning Commission Subdivision Committee - October 3, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · October 3, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6238 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6238?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-10-03 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 29, 2026 - **Length**: 20,181 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Subdivision Committee convened on October 3, 2024, at 8:30 AM in the Phoenix Building's 3rd Floor Conference Room. The committee reviewed two agenda items during the session, taking a total of two votes on subdivision and development matters. One public comment was heard during the meeting proceedings. The committee approved PLN-MJSUB-24-00007 concerning the Lancaster & Keiser Property, while PLN-MJDP-24-00068 regarding the ZEE FAULKNER PROPERTY was postponed for future consideration. The meeting addressed both subdivision and development plan applications as part of the committee's regular review process for land development proposals within the jurisdiction. ## Attendance All commission members were present for the October 3, 2024 meeting. **Present:** • Vaughan Adkins • Demetria Kimball • Eric Sutherland • Ben Cornett • Brooke Gray • Greg Lengal • Embry Beatty • David Filiatreau • Rob Poage • Scott Burton • Scott Thompson • Boyd Sewe • Craig Prater • Chris Dent • Holly Salzarcarillo • Traci Wade • Daniel Crum • Cheryl Gallt • Eve Miller • Paula Schumacher • Tracy Jones **Absent:** None **Late:** None A total of 21 members attended the meeting, representing full participation from the commission. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on two agenda items during the October 3, 2024 meeting. **PLM, MJ, MJ SUV 24-7 - Lancaster and Kaiser Property** The Commission unanimously approved the application for PLM, MJ, MJ SUV 24-7 regarding the Lancaster and Kaiser property. The motion was made by Madam Chair and passed with unanimous consent. The approval was granted subject to eight attached conditions that were part of the staff recommendation. **PLNMJDP 24-68 - Z. Faulkner Property** The Commission unanimously voted to postpone consideration of application PLNMJDP 24-68 for the Z. Faulkner property. The motion to postpone was made by Madam Chair and received unanimous support from all Commission members present. Both decisions were made through unanimous consent rather than formal roll call votes, indicating no opposition from Commission members on either matter. The specific conditions attached to the Lancaster and Kaiser property approval were referenced as being included with the staff materials, though the individual conditions were not detailed during the voting portion of the meeting. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one community member addressed the Commission regarding local property concerns. Tracy spoke about issues related to the Z. Faulkner property. Her comments focused on three main areas of concern: waste location, business hours, and noise levels associated with the property. Tracy expressed specific worries about how these factors might be impacting the surrounding area and community. No additional public comments were recorded during this portion of the meeting. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this public comment period.* ## Appointments The Commission made one appointment during the October 3, 2024 meeting. • **Frank Penn** was appointed to the Subdivision Committee The appointment was processed as part of the Commission's regular business to fill positions on various municipal committees and boards. ## Contested Items The Commission meeting on October 3, 2024, featured one contested item that generated significant community opposition and required postponement for further review. **Z. Faulkner Property Conditions** The primary contested issue involved property conditions related to Z. Faulkner, which drew substantial community opposition during the meeting. Community members who attended the session raised multiple concerns about the property's operations and their impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The specific issues raised by residents included: • **Noise concerns** - Community members expressed complaints about noise levels associated with activities on the property • **Waste management problems** - Residents cited issues with how waste was being handled or disposed of on the property • **Business hours disputes** - There were objections to the operating hours of activities taking place on the property The level of community opposition was significant enough that the Commission determined the matter required additional review before any decisions could be made. Rather than proceeding with a vote or resolution during the October 3rd meeting, the Commission opted to postpone consideration of the Z. Faulkner property conditions to allow for: • Further investigation of the community concerns raised • Additional time for staff review of the issues • Potential opportunities for dialogue between the property owner and concerned residents The postponement indicates the Commission's recognition of the substantial community interest in this matter and their commitment to thoroughly addressing resident concerns before making any determinations about the property conditions. The item will likely return to a future Commission agenda once the additional review process has been completed. This contested item demonstrates the Commission's responsiveness to community input when significant opposition is expressed by residents regarding local property issues. ## PLN-MJSUB-24-00007: Lancaster & Keiser Property The Commission discussed a preliminary subdivision plan for the Lancaster & Keiser Property involving a zone change from B-1 (Business) to R-3 (Residential). Key speakers during the discussion included Daniel Crum and Tony Barrett, who presented details about the proposed development and zoning modification. The preliminary subdivision plan was presented for Commission review, with staff providing analysis of the zone change request from commercial business use to higher-density residential classification. The R-3 zoning designation would allow for increased residential development density compared to the current B-1 business zoning. Following discussion of the proposal's merits and compliance with local planning requirements, the Commission moved to approve the preliminary subdivision plan. The approval came with attached conditions that must be met as the project moves forward through the development process. The Commission's recommendation for approval with conditions indicates the proposal met the necessary criteria for the zone change and subdivision, while ensuring appropriate safeguards and requirements are in place for the development's next phases. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* ## PLN-MJDP-24-00068: ZEE FAULKNER PROPERTY The Commission discussed an amended final development plan for the Z. Faulkner property during the October 3, 2024 meeting. The agenda item focused on reviewing proposed changes to the previously approved development plan. Key speakers during the discussion included Tracy and Rory Keeley, who presented details about the amended development proposal. The discussion centered on specific aspects of the development plan that required Commission review and approval. **Concerns Raised:** • Landscaping issues were identified as a primary concern requiring further attention • Noise-related impacts from the proposed development were discussed as potential problems needing resolution The Commission's deliberation revealed that the current proposal had unresolved issues that prevented immediate approval. The landscaping concerns appeared to involve questions about the adequacy or appropriateness of the proposed landscaping plan, while noise concerns likely related to potential impacts on surrounding properties or compliance with local noise ordinances. **Outcome:** The Commission decided to postpone action on PLN-MJDP-24-00068 pending resolution of the identified concerns. This postponement allows the applicant time to address the landscaping and noise issues raised during the discussion before bringing the amended development plan back for further consideration. The postponement indicates that while the development concept may have merit, the specific details regarding landscaping design and noise mitigation require additional work to meet the Commission's standards and address community concerns. The item will likely return to a future Commission meeting once the applicant has had opportunity to revise the proposal to address the identified deficiencies. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLM, MJ, MJ SUV 24-7, Lancaster and Kaiser property with the attached eight conditions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of PLNMJDP 24-68 Z. Faulkner property --- ## Full transcript Thank you all, I appreciate it. Good morning, everyone. We want to welcome back to the Subdivision Committee, our Frank Penn, he was joining us effective today, so we're glad to have him. So we'll go ahead and get started with our first item. Good morning, the first plan on your agenda is MJSUB 24-7 Lancaster-Kaiser property. In your packets you should see a revised staff report on this plan. This is a preliminary subdivision plan for a zone change. You can see this is located on East 7th and Maple and then Lancaster. This property is right here, this whole block here is zone B1 for neighborhood business and they are requesting a zone change to an R3. So with the revised, they submitted a revised plan and they were able to knock it down to just a few sign-off conditions, engineering, traffic, forest or environmental quality, and just a couple more, a couple clean-up conditions, denote review and recommendations of the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee, and then one discussion question is discuss building line setback. In the R3 zone, the building line is 20 foot, but because the structure, you can see the structure is a little closer, so typically when we have a building that's over top of the building line, we like to add a note that's saying this is a non-conformity, so I left that as a discussion just to make sure that we know that a note needs to be added so we can resolve that, but because of the building already being there, they're not wanting to tear the building down, they're just wanting to use the structure that's already there. And then it was discussed place builder criteria, which I believe Mr. Crum can go through with that for you. I open it to you all if there's any other comments or questions. Good morning, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. For a refresher, for some of you that haven't been here in a while, associated with zone changes, we discuss how that kind of applies within our framework for the place builder criteria. We'll have a more in-depth discussion of this later on this afternoon, but a single family residence that was converted to a business is now being converted back to a residence, so low-density residential is appropriate in enhanced neighborhoods. They recommend the zone. The applicant should provide some more information if they've conducted any public outreach, but other than that, staff finds that the applicant's choices are appropriate, and we'll talk about it a little bit more later on this afternoon. It's worth noting the applicant is seeking some dimensional variances from the required landscaping because this is being transitioned to or is proposed to become an R3 where that adjoins business zonings. There's normally required landscaping. The applicant is seeking to waive that, and staff is in agreement with their recommendation there. So, any zoning questions, I'd be happy to answer. Otherwise, it looks like Tony's got it ready for his. Thank you. I'm trying to move this along. I forgot Daniel had to come up and give his zoning spiel. Tony Barrett on behalf of the applicant, just really wanted to make a comment about the building lines and existing building in the infill and redevelopment area. I would prefer that it's about an 11-foot setback from the sidewalk, so I put the 20-foot on there just from zoning, but I think as an infill and redevelopment lot, it could be existing. Unfortunately, the way the ordinance reads, it's if it's in the same zone you can average, so because you all are changing the zone, and you'll be the only R3 on that portion of the block, the ordinance doesn't allow for averaging in that case. All right. Well, our intent is just to keep it as a non-conforming structure at this point, so otherwise, I don't really have any other comment. Since we won't be at the zoning committee meeting this afternoon, have you had any neighborhood outreach yet? Dick is here, but I don't know that they have at this point, yeah. This is actually my partner, Chris Clendenin's case. I think they have, but I think they've talked to some individuals around there, but other than that, I don't know at this point, yeah. Fall break. Quick question, Tony or Dick, one of y'all, or maybe staff, proposal to go to R3, it was recently B1. Do you know when it changed to B1? Yeah, it is currently B1, and it's going to R3, yeah. Was there a change sometime back, or, because supposedly it was a house, but it went to business. No, it's, it's, the B1 zone was applied, did you say, Daniel, prior to 1969? Yes. Okay. So it's, it's been a non-conforming B1 area for a while. It appeared to be billed as a house, then it got converted to commercial, and it's been vacant for many years right now, so the owner wants to put it back into the house. What's on either side, zoning-wise? B1. B1's on both sides, okay. But I think it's houses, at least on one side, it's on the right, it's, on the right it's a house. Yes, on the right it's a house, on the left it's a business. Okay. I'm just curious, why would it have to be non-conforming, other than the setback? No, well, it has a non-conforming use, well. But it was a residence, so. It was built as a residence, they applied the B1, the city applied the B1 zoning to it, at some point it converted to a business, which made it conforming. So once the business stopped, it lost its conform, it's no longer conforming, and to return to a single family home, needs a zone change. Okay. The zone change, I don't mind, I'm just curious as to why it would have to be non-conforming if it was a residence and zoned a residence at one point in time. Yeah, it was probably built before the regulations were in place. Could have had additions made without permission too, don't know. No, we won't go there. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? All right, thank you. Okay, committee. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLM, MJ, I can't read, MJ SUV 24-7, Lancaster and Kaiser property with the attached eight conditions. Second. Okay, then move and second. All in favor? Aye. Unanimous. Next. Let's see, our next item appears on page two, and it is a final development plan for a property we saw recently for a zone change. This is a parcel located at 509 East Main Street, called the Z. Faulkner property, and this is an amended final development plan for this property. The purpose of the final development plan is to record the conditional zoning restriction change that was approved by the Urban County Council, I believe it was last year. At this point, there are not many physical changes to the property being proposed, although some notes and other items on the plan are proposed to be reviewed by the commission today. We'll zoom in here a little bit. Main Street runs along the front of the property, and then this is Forest Avenue along the side. So the structure faces Main Street, and then the entrance to the rear parking lot is off of Forest Avenue. There are a number of parking spaces in the back. There's no proposed change at this point for those. What is being denoted is some garage spaces in the back, as well as a covered porch and landscape open area along the, I guess this would be the southern side of the building. The applicant does need to make a few corrections to the development plan, and there was some discussion at the tech committee about some other issues. It generally has sign-offs for our typical sign-offs, engineering, traffic engineering, the landscape examiner, the urban forester, environmental quality and waste management, as well as water quality in the post office. They do need to denote all building paving signs, et cetera, that are depicted will still need building permits from the Division of Building Inspection. They do need to correct the conditional zoning restrictions. One of the restrictions listed on the plan was what the planning commission approved, but the council made an amendment to that, and that is relative to the landscape buffer proposed along the side and rear of the property. So the council asked that the applicant plant a 15-foot tall shrub or tree along those two areas, not a width of a landscape buffer, but actually the height of the landscape planting to be proposed at 15 feet tall, but they did understand that that would need BOAR approval, and so they made it contingent on BOAR agreeing that that was appropriate for this property. So the applicant is aware that they need to go to the BOAR for that review, as well as any other changes that they're proposing to the exterior of the property, and I believe they have that scheduled. At this point, it's been scheduled for October the 16th, okay, 16th, and the planning commission is scheduled to hear this particular development plan on October 10th. I've recommended to the applicant that they wait and go to the BOAR first, but that's not really, there's no specific process outlined in our ordinance as to which one needs to come first. Our recommendation is that they do seek that approval from the BOAR and review first so that those things can be denoted and reviewed by the commission in a public meeting. So just everyone knows that we've made that suggestion. They do need to update some additional information on the site plan related to floor area ratio, vehicular and bicycle parking, open space, and the proposed use. They do need to remove note number one, which is a duplication of the conditional zoning restrictions, and they need to make a standard note about building permits related to the final development plan approved. They need to denote any existing and proposed easements. There didn't seem to be any on here, which was a little surprising. So we'll get that cleared up and then discuss the possible 15-foot tall landscape screening along the rear and side yards, and I think I mentioned that as a requirement of the conditional zoning restrictions, again, contingent on the BOAR review and approval. A few of the things we discussed at tech committee are probably addressed in Ms. Deaton's letter to you, which is on white paper there. Yep, she asked that we provide that. There were some note changes that the applicant is proposing that are, I think, a bit more specific than what the commission considered at the preliminary development plan with the conditional zoning restriction changes, and those relate to operating hours or business hours for the site, as well as the outdoor hours, the outdoor speakers, the dumpster trash. I'm not sure you all discussed smoking, and then the buffer. So of note in the notes on the plan, and I know you can't read this, the planning commission in our decision from earlier was that there be no outdoor speakers at all, and they have updated their note to allow for at least music outside at a decibel limit, and again, that's something the commission can review and make changes to those notes. The other one of concern was the hours of operation. It was noted on the plan, again, with the decision of the commission, that there would be no outdoor service or activity after 10 p.m., and I believe they've changed that particular note as well to be, I think it just says during the week, or except for during certain events which may extend the hours of operation on occasion, which is not very specific. So there's obviously some concern about that. I'm sorry, I don't have my glasses. No, I know. Is the dumpster location on there now? No, there's not a dumpster location on there. They will need to work out either a dumpster location or solid waste service with the Division of Solid Waste. Any other questions for staff? I have one. Sure. Turn your mic on, please. Turn your mic on. Fifteen foot plantings, is that just to buffer Bellcourt from saying over? Is that what that's for? Yes. I believe they already either have a six or eight foot tall brick wall. So it was the height. I believe they're planning to use the second floor, not just for office space, but for the private club. And so that would obviously kind of bring up the noise and activity. I mean, it's got to be a pretty solid 15 foot edge there if it's going to do anything other than just be a view thing. Right. Okay. Thank you. So the staff was recommending approval, but obviously there's still some notes that we would want the commission to review and make sure that they're consistent with previous decisions and or the applicant can explain the changes to the notes for you. Just one other question because this is, I'm thinking about a part of town I don't normally go to eat, but it seems to me what's going on here in many ways is like, is it Kenwick Table, the name of the? Kenwick Table is a restaurant. Yes. Situated in a neighborhood. Yes. So the context is very similar. Have we done any look in terms of the conditions that are imposed on Kenwick Table in terms of clarifying some of these issues about music and hours and that kind of thing? There are no conditions imposed on Kenwick Table. Kenwick Table. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Other than like the noise ordinance in general. Thank you. Applicant? Hi. Rory Keeley. We have members of the applicant management staff here as well and let's see. Items nine through 15 are cleanup ones I can take care of. Interestingly there are, I've got the parent plat. There are no recorded easements. I believe this part of town is old enough. They just kind of got to exist. The item 15 is the wall. They have submitted to the BOAR for screening. They were supposed to have been heard last month but there was a, notices went out incorrectly. So they are going to be heard the week after you guys would hear this. We believe they've been working with them. We believe we've got the approval of them. They won't release their findings until 24 hours before the hearing. But they've, staff's been working with the applicants. We believe we have it. It will be screening wise because there is existing walls on all these sides that we're talking about and you can see the paving doesn't give you room to go in there and be planting a bunch of stuff. So they are having large planter boxes mounted at the tops of the walls and those will be planted with evergreens, I believe is on the list. And that will take the wall higher up. They cannot extend the walls any higher. They're in the backyards. That's what they're allowed to build. So they're going to go to the top of the wall, add boxes where they can actually get some soil and some dirt and then they're going to put the screens above that. We would definitely like to be heard by you on the 10th since the BOAR postponed themselves a month. And we'll, you know, add details and notes to the development plan reflecting what the BOAR approves. Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant? So Roy, the, with the landscape screening adding to, I presume the wall, current wall is like eight feet now? I believe it's different heights throughout the area. Yeah, there's, I think it might be, yeah, but yes. So they've been told they cannot increase the height of the wall. It's already at its maximum in the rear yards. So the reason for BOA. Yeah. And this, your, the applicant's request is to go to that height. I believe this additional screening all came about through the zone change. The council required a 15 foot tall. Up to 15. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Landscape. There's something. Not 15 wide. So this has already been to the council? The council amended, if you remember, we had a hearing to change the conditional zoning restrictions for this property because it was very, very limited to just the art and furnishing sales. So this is cross gate then? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Zeve Hockner to cross gate this. Okay. I'm, I'm. I didn't use that term. They're not there anymore. They've moved. Okay. I'm with you. Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant? All right. We do have neighbors here too. Yes. Okay. We can hear from the public at this point. Yes. So just the thing that you can't see from this flat plan is that it is a two story patio. The second story is going to be used for dining and outdoor, you know, it's a club with a restaurant. So the neighbor's concern is that outdoor space and the hours and the noise and the smoke and all of those things kind of come back. If it were indoor only situation, we wouldn't be here having a lot of these conversations. So that's really the crux of the neighborhood concern. A lot of the plan plan, like when we went to the zoning, we, the neighborhood was fighting the zoning change primarily because of the restaurant club usage for that reason. And in order to protect the neighborhood, the zone change was approved with a lot of these conditions in place. And now it feels like the owners are trying to retract or loosen some of those conditions that I felt like planning and city council put in place to approve the zone change. So the zone change went through, but with some protections and we're hoping that we can maintain those protections so that we can all live in the same neighborhood together with this business. So the things that Tracy sort of alluded to, but I want to get a little bit more specific on one is there is no waste location denoted at all. This has been a sticking point with the neighbors from the beginning because there are eight and 11 feet from the, not from the property line, from the houses on either side of this. So a dumpster with a dumpster pickup at the hours that they pick up is really going to be disturbing residential on both sides. And we've been asking for a waste management plan since the early submission of their preliminary plan and haven't gotten one, still don't have one. The business hours versus service hours, that feels like a small little language thing, but it's a really big deal because when we met with planning, what business hours means is that people have to be off of the patio at 10 PM so neighbors can go to bed and that people aren't going to be chatting on the patio. And service hours means they're not going to be getting food or beverage, but they can still be out there talking as late as they want to be. That's our concern with that language shift, so we'd like that to move back to what was initially approved in planning, which is business hours. They also said, just sort of slipped in there, also except when we have events, which is also not okay. It needs to be 10 PM, regardless of what's going on, they can't just decide to have a party and then all of a sudden it's 2 in the morning. Then the other piece of this was weeknights. There was a specific language put in on throughout the week, and it basically said weekdays, and they're trying to change that language. Friday nights are okay to be open later, and these nights are okay, I'd like to revert to the original language of what planning actually approved again, and not try to loosen that language to let different nights have later hours and make that a looser language. I'd like to go back to what was originally approved. That was seven days a week. It was very clear that there would be no outdoor amplification at all, and they're just trying to put in some decibel language there. Just no outdoor speakers, that seems super clear to us as a neighborhood. Seems super reasonable. I think it's reasonable, again, 8 feet and 11 feet residences on both sides, it seems reasonable to say there's not going to be any speakers. The dumpster and trash issue, we already mentioned that, and then smoking, they said in the zoning approval and the planning approval that there would be no smoking on the premises, and that just was left out completely. The nature of that patio is that any smoking, cigar, cigarette, whatever, is going to go right into the windows of the properties that are next door. These are old houses, their windows are open, that's just really not ideal for those neighbors. And then to the buffer and screening situation, I know it sounds funny to say a 15 foot buffer is going to solve everybody's problems. It's not. We're not delusional that that's going to be the answer to all of our problems. But I will say, this is a picture of my house and a buffer that we put in because we have a very close neighbor, and I do think it makes a difference. And the way you can get dirt is you can dig, because we did it. So if they need dirt, they can dig, and then they can plant in that dirt. So it's not impossible to make dirt. And I provided planning with that email trail as well, and these are 15 feet. They take up less than two foot of dirt, and they provide a nice buffer. These are less than two years old, and they've sheltered our property very well from the property that's next door to us. I think something like this is very reasonable, and it doesn't even need BOAR approval. That's the beauty of this, it's landscaping. Doesn't even require the BOAR to be involved. So it's a really nice compromise that the applicants have refused to, they agreed to. And then now all of a sudden they're like, well, we don't have dirt, we can't do anything. I'm not confident that the BOR is going to approve these planter boxes. We've also been down to the BOAR, we've had conversations with them. I'm less confident that this is going to sail through as described, and I don't think we should go through with a planning commission approval meeting until we've had that BOAR conversation. Because I don't want to be back here having a conversation about planter boxes. We spent, Tracy, keep me honest, we spent like an hour in that room talking about this buffer, and wasting everybody's time back and forth, and saying who comes first, BOAR planning, who approves what, when do we approve it? Let's just not go through that again. Let's plant some trees. They still have to go in front of the BOAR for lighting and some other stuff. But just take it out of it, and do what they promised to do. Or do the BOR hearing first, if they really want to do the planter boxes, get that approved. And then if they can't, come back to something like this, and then go in front of planning. Do the sequence right, so we're not in this endless loop of process and wasting y'all's time, Tracy's time, everybody's time, which is what happened at the last meeting. So, those are really our notes. Anything I missed, Trish? Yeah. Happy to answer any questions. Any of that, if anybody has any. Thank you. Thanks. Do we have a response from the applicant? Or staff? I can answer the solid waste one. It's going to continue being roll carts. There's no room on the site to get a truck in and turned around. Trucks, the solid waste trucks are not permitted to back up onto public streets. It's one of those, that's why I have so much trouble with all my development plans trying to get the dumpsters to fit. So this one, we'll have to continue running the roll carts. The, we can, if you want, we've got the applicants here. They can talk to you more about the operation of the facility. But as far as the BOAR, they believe that the planner boxes was from the discussion. We think it's going to be approved, what they wanted. And to talk about trying to dig and add dirt, you need space for roots. You need room for the tree. Between a foot and a half there, between the asphalt and the walls, it's just not viable to be trying to plant trees on the inside of this property. We don't have the room as it is for the cars, easy, nice movement. This is an old, tight parking lot. We're at the minimum. Anything you try to take away from there is just going to hurt the parking and access. So, I don't know. How much of a hearing do you want to have? For some reason, I think we're going to hear it again. Staff, as far as the landscape buffering, going to the BOA? It's BOAR. BOAR. Architectural Review, yes, because they're in an H1 overlay district. So, it's our opinion that it is best if they do go to BOAR first. Again, it's not required in our ordinance. It doesn't give specifics as to which board you see first. But I think in this case, it would give the commission more specificity as to what you're approving. Because if they do need to plant something, they're going to have to show on this plan where there's space to do that. So, what the BOAR approves in terms of landscaping could have an impact on your development plan. And I think it's best that we have that discussion in a public meeting, let the neighborhood be there as well, as opposed to saving that for a condition after you meet. It can be addressed on a certified plan. I just think in this case, it's best to have that discussion in the public meeting. So, is the applicant willing to postpone next week? Will we be able to hear them? The commission can postpone them without their agreement. Hold on, I'm getting the applicant here to help me. Because you have 90 days, so you have until December 2nd for this particular plan. So, we are more than willing to make a condition of the certification, fully addressing this BOAR, having the landscaping solution fully approved. We're here, we're willing to work through that process. I think that we have already had the BOAR hearing pushed back a month due to an administrative issue. We're just trying to avoid a scenario where we end up being heard in November or December for the development plan. So, we're fully willing to work through this. We have our hearing date set for the 16th. We've worked with Amelia on the BOAR staff to specifically develop this detail. Once it became apparent that planting trees, it's a physical impossibility, because we're already at our minimum drive distances and parking space depths on the plan as is. So, this is what Amelia and the BOAR staff have specifically approved. We're going to be heard on the 16th. We fully expect approval on the 16th, and we will- It's a public hearing. Yes. So, I want you to be aware that the staff can recommend approval, and the board can act differently, just like this planning commission can. So, there's nothing for sure happening on the 16th. Fully understand that, and we're also fully willing- We fully understand that the plan will not be certified until the point which BOAR is signed off on the landscaping detail. So, we understand that. We're just trying to avoid a scenario of our development plan hearing date being pushed further and further in the event that we do, in fact, get approval on the 16th. Well, kind of- Hold on. Kind of what we're suggesting, though, is that from a planning commission standpoint- Yes. To keep you from being pushed out and pushed out, that we go ahead and delay our decision until after the BOAR, because what's going to happen is it's going to say pending BOAR approval, and we don't know what that approval looks like. And so, we probably won't say yes to that, because we need to understand the whole scope of things, and we can't understand it until the BOAR lets you know. So, that's why we're suggesting that next week we will postpone until maybe- I don't know if we can fit it in on the 24th, or either it would be the first meeting in November, one of those two dates. And for our decision. And then, that way, we're making a full decision without any question. We know what we're approving. Fully understand that. And if we can be heard on the 24th, that would certainly be agreeable to us. I think we're just trying to avoid getting pushed to the November cycle. And just so everybody here is aware, this was a request that we are actively trying to comply to. We cannot plant these trees. We've confirmed that. We've surveyed the property. It's a physical impossibility. So, we're here to do whatever it is that BOAR will require. We just want to work through the process, and we don't want to get held up on that. If we can be heard on the 24th, we're agreeable to that. I'd just like to clarify your language. Yes. Okay, or request a clarification. These folks have shown a picture of trees planted. I would say, and this is speaking from experience on the tree board. Yes. You could probably, I haven't seen the space, but my guess is with a foot and a half you can plant trees, you just can't ensure their survival. That was the issue. And what you're trying to do is ensure survival. That was the issue. We have about 13 inches between where the asphalt bed and the curb stops land and the existing perimeter wall. Our landscapers have told us we can plant them, they won't survive. The solution we have proposed will take landscaping to about 13, 14, 15 feet, and it's a long-term solution that works. I've said my piece, but if we can be heard on the 24th, that would be greatly appreciated. While you're here, could you clarify your business versus service hours? I'm going to hand that over to Tyler Bromwich. Yes, I can speak to that. The changes that we've made to the two notes on the plan, they're minor changes. We've onboarded a general manager. He's from a high-end resort in North Carolina. Unfortunately, he can't be here today. He's stuck in the whole Asheville mess. But basically, he has requested that we make these two changes for operational needs. And what do they mean is the question. I mean, if you think about it, you know, for the occasional, you know, event that will go past the hours of operation, if you consider like a New Year's Eve party. You know, if we go to midnight on a New Year's Eve party, that's a Tuesday of this year. So we just would prefer that we are – we've already made a lot of concessions on this and restricted the uses of the property to protect the neighborhood. We're just simply asking not to be restricted too far. And we believe that these are minor changes that shouldn't be an impact to the neighborhood. The outdoor speakers specifically, I don't know if you guys have ever been down there, but the traffic on Main Street is very loud. That is actually more disruptive than we will ever be. And we would just like a little ambient noise in the courtyard. That's it. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? And I'll give you an opportunity. Yes, please. I understand maybe you're New Year's Eve, but how do you classify an event and how frequently do you think they will be? You know, that will just be based on operations. I don't anticipate that it will be – you know, it's like an occasional event. I mean, how do we basically write this so that you guys feel comfortable without further restricting the property to where we can't do anything? We're already restricting our hours of operation a lot further than we'd like to. Our general manager would like to open up at 730 in the morning for co-working and business professionals to come in. Under the current restrictions, we cannot do that. So we're just trying to allow for a little bit of flexibility. The reality of this, if you can't define it, we will. Well, that's what we've tried to do in the notes as best as possible is to clarify that language. We've set, you know, levels, the decibels for outdoor speakers to justify the ambient music. We've set normal service hours. I'm talking about events. Yes. The number of events. It would be better for you to recognize it than for us to have set a time. Not a time, but the amount of events you could have. What we're saying is your occasional and the neighborhood's occasional may not be very close together. It would be better if you could specify beyond New Year's what particular days you're talking about. I can completely understand that. The city has already said that if it was entirely indoors, it wouldn't be a problem. We're already closing the patio early. It closes at 10 a.m. or 10 p.m. on, I believe, on weekdays. Is that right? On the notes. So we're closing the outdoor areas early, and indoors shouldn't be an issue. Well, what I'm getting at is you need to work this out with them in a neighborhood meeting and come back with a recommendation, or we're going to have to make one. We've had four neighborhood meetings so far. We had a five-hour city council meeting just for us. We've tried to work with the neighborhood. This is two minor changes that we're asking, whereas other businesses aren't even restricted. You mentioned Kenwick Table. No restrictions. You have other businesses in the vicinity. No restrictions. To be honest, I don't understand why we would, you know, specifically place additional restrictions on this property when others don't. No, sir. I'm saying that, you know, if you think about it, we are just trying to operate a business. This is what we're looking at for our business operational needs. This is what our GM has asked us to come back to you with. And, yeah, we're hoping that you support it. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Any more questions? So what are the business hours now? Oh, okay. I'm just trying to. Could you come up front, please? I can't wait to give you the actual. The regular service hours for the property shall be Sunday through Thursday from 8.30 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Fridays to Saturday from 9 a.m. to 12 a.m. Except for during certain events, which may extend the hours of operation on occasion, any outside patio areas shall close for service at 10 p.m. throughout the week. Just a clarification. That language, that except for certain hours, the patio is still closed, is that what you're saying, even those except for certain occasions? 10 p.m. Okay. Yeah, patio 10 p.m. throughout the week. Throughout the week. Does that include seven days of the week? Yeah, it seems like every day. Business week. Throughout the week, every day. Seven days. Throughout the week. Yeah. Well, the reason, because at some point you say weekdays and then you say throughout the week, so is the week seven days? The language of the weekdays versus weekends was inserted in the previous planning and zoning meeting on the fly, and then it was changed to a preliminary development plan. So this is, we tried to keep the language as best as possible with some clarifications in there. Okay. So daily the patio closes at 10 p.m.? Yes, ma'am. Okay. We can have that in there. That may be better to say daily, you know, which implies every single day. Yeah, I think the staff will be ready to recommend a note revision. Okay. Okay. And I know the, you need to come forward. I need you to come forward. Okay. We're being recorded, so we need you up front. So I just keep hearing the applicants say it is physically impossible to put landscaping here because of the parking, but there is no parking requirement. That's right. There's no parking requirement. So they could mow all of this under and make it a beautiful garden if they wanted to. Yes, which would have a different impact for you all. Right. I'm just saying, like, using parking as a reason to not put in a tree buffer because they've only got so much dirt is not, from a city perspective, any regulation that they have to follow. I think that was probably a little misleading. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Megan's right. There's no parking requirements. You all know that. Right, except for what they think they need to operate. And the more parking they can provide on their site, the less is in the neighborhood or, you know, down the street and across the street. There's a balance there, so. Yeah. Nobody uses that parking lot right now, though, because the way the gate works, there's, like, a narrow gate. They will. So, yeah. I mean, right now we're dealing with the situation of, like, they're doing construction, and we've been told by the owners that all of the cars will be off of the street. I mean, I have a photo of last night where there were five delivery trucks blocking the street completely. None of them are pulling into that lot because of the gated, narrow entrance. Yeah. That lot is unusable. Most people don't know to pull in there. So I'm less worried about the parking. We're in the process of getting residential parking only on our street anyway. I'm more worried about, like, protection of the neighborhood. So when you all are making that decision of, like, we physically can't do it, I just want to be clear that there's no city reason that that can't be done. They can't do it within the current confines. Right. Right. Okay. Which means it costs them money. Absolutely. So they're not willing to do it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Ms. Barksdale. Yes. I want to make sure everybody's clear on what the condition was that came from the council relating to the landscape buffer and the BOAR approval. This property is in a historic district. And so changes to the property, including landscaping, whether it's changes to the building, which aren't being proposed, you know, the architecture of the building or anything, but all have to have approval from the BOAR. And so since there's a wall around this building, I don't know what in that parking lot, I don't know what the BOAR is going to do with it. But just so we're clear, you know, they could say at their meeting something entirely different from everything that's being discussed in this room because it relates to landscaping. And whatever they say based on the condition from the council is what's going to go. Because the council condition was a 15-foot high landscaping buffer based on the findings of the BOAR. And the discussion on that, because I was there, is that for the whole five hours, by the way, the discussion was we want a taller buffer than the wall. And we know that the BOAR and the ordinances for zoning aren't going to allow a taller wall. But the discussion was also because the BOAR has purview, including landscaping in these historic zones, they may or may not approve that. So just so we're clear, what happens at that meeting, we don't know what it's going to be, but they have purview over both the building and the landscaping. And what they say is what's going to go. So just so everybody's clear, because it seems like there's discussion back and forth. There can be proposals made to them. But the way that condition is worded, it is their call. So just wanted everybody to understand because it seems like that's getting a little bit lost. Okay. Yeah, that definitely helps. Thanks a lot. Frank. Tracy, could I ask you, that has to do with the, but that doesn't, they don't have the hours. No, no, they, they, they, it's strictly, you know, in the historic zones, it's strictly the architecture, the character, the landscaping of what it looks like as it's protected by the, you know, H1 overlay. Yeah. Thank you. Considering what we, as an example, heard a week ago, depending on what the OAR approves or doesn't, I would presume it could come back to us in an appeal? Yes, it could. Okay. Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? The staff had previously recommended approval. Again, we were under the impression they were going to the BOAR prior to your meeting. So I think it would probably be best if we recommended postponement. Absolutely. That's what it sounds like. And really any clarification you all can give to your notes. Certain events could be a wedding, which you could have every single weekend. So talk about what you really mean in your notes on the plan. Yeah, and the BOAR approval. I imagine we'll put all that on the plan for you. Okay. And did you have something else? I was just going to say, again, as far as the notes that we've made, the minor changes, again, we're trying to balance a lot of things here. And if you consider the uses that were approved by city council and the other businesses in the neighborhood, there's the Bell House. It's a banquet hall. They have weddings, events, all sorts of things. You have three, four houses down is the Ann Greeley building that's for sale. It's unrestricted B2. That can be a nightclub right now. You have restaurants across the street. You have restaurants down the street. Again, we're already very restricted in what we are doing here. We're just asking for a little common sense application of the law. And that's all I'll say. Thank you all. Common sense is not always common. But, yeah, we just need some clarification so that it's not just out there. And actually, I think the note about the decibel level, I don't know, you might want to consider that as better than what keeps you from having a speaker on the inside that's pointed outside. So I think having control over the decibel level is probably a reasonable request as opposed to whether there are speakers outside or inside. But that's my thought. Okay. All right. Okay. So we'll thank you. I think we'll bring that back to the committee. I'm doing the best I can without my glasses here. Okay. I'm going to move for a postponement of PLNMJDP. Looks like 2468 Z. Faulkner property, 69. No, 68. I can read that. With the attached 16 conditions with a recommendation that this be rescheduled on the agenda on the 10th. So the commission can choose at that point to postpone two weeks or a month. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Next week. Great. Thank you. Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Unanimous for postponement. All right. Next item. Okay. We're going to move down the agenda. This is MJDP 2469 Coldstream Research Campus. We did receive revised plans, so you'll have a list of revised conditions for this plan. This property is located out off of McGrathiana. We have Newtown Pike down in here. This is coming into the Coldstream Research Park. They're coming in with a proposed bank. We have access coming in off at McGrathiana with parking. We have a drive-thru aisle coming, wrapping around with the drive-thru windows to leave the property. Here's a closer-up picture of it. They came back with the revised plan. We still have our typical sign-offs. There's a long list, 12 of them. We have a note, addition of a note from building inspection about all building permits, paving and signs. They have to be permitted. We would like to remove the copyright note from the title block. Once a plan has been submitted to the Division of Planning for review, it becomes public record. So the copyright note doesn't need to be there. Correct graphic scale. The plan scales as to what it says, but the graphic scale doesn't scale correctly. Addition of block coverage in building square footage, not in a percentage, in the site statistics. And note review and recommendation by the Royal Springs Aquifer. This property, being located in the Coldstream Research Park, is located within the Royal Springs. And we've asked for everybody to go talk to them before they come see you guys. So I'm not quite sure where they are with their meeting at that moment with them. So with that, I open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions for staff? All right. Applicant? Good morning. Chris Mitchell, Palmer Engineering. I'm covering for Stephanie Blaine, who's on vacation, who's also on fall break. So we reviewed the comments, and we've been trying to contact the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee to set up a meeting. They haven't been responding, so we'll continue to effort to do that. But we've been trying to get that meeting scheduled but have not been able to, so we'll continue to try. But all the other comments, we are able to address those in time. So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Any public comment? All right. We'll go back at the committee. Here we go. Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation approval Plan MJDP 24-69 Cold Stream Research Campus with the revised now 17 conditions. Can we get a second? I'll second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. The motion is adopted unanimously. Okay. We're moving down the agenda. We're moving to PLNMJDP 24-70. This is for Melanie Village, Unit 3C, Block C. We saw this not too long ago. This property is located off of Red River Drive. They're coming in for an elderly, affordable elderly housing project with one building here. We have an existing building that right now is not being able to be used. We have a driveway that's going to wrap around, and they have another daycare located in here. Then they'll bring it back out to Red River. They submitted a revised plan. Let's see if we got close up. There we go. We have a revised plan for this property. The first 11 conditions are our typical sign-offs once again. We add the note for building inspection. We need to add tree protection map, addition of council approval date on August 27-24. This is where we came back in front. This was a modified conditional zoning review zone change where they had 60,000 square feet proposed, and then they came back and they asked for 80,000, and this was just re-approved through the planning commission and council for the 80,000, so we want to make sure that we have the right approval date on here for that. We need copy information in the site statistics box for the total. Typically they have everything listed under here, but usually you want to have it under your total line so that as if they come in and modify these additional areas, they can add those statistics on here so that we will have a grand total under the total box. Resolve the type of plan submitted. The first plan that they had submitted, they had shown a proposed property line that was coming down through here to subdivide the property, and so we made the recommendation of making this a preliminary subdivision plan at the same time. When they submitted the revised plan, that property line disappeared, so we're not quite sure if they're still proposing to do this. They have preliminary subdivision in the title, but that line disappeared, so we're just wanting to verify what we're wanting to do on this development plan. With that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions for staff? All right, we'll hear from the applicant. Good morning. My name is Ashley Bartley. I'm with the engineering firm QK4 out of Louisville, Kentucky. I'm a landscape architect. I've been going through the revised development plan, the rezoning, and now the final development plan. I'll just note a couple things. This is still a preliminary subdivision plan, and we will be subdividing this. We're still trying to figure out exactly where that property line wants to go. We talked about putting it in the center line of the parking, but then there might be some issues with the parking being located off the property from this new building. We also are looking at building code requirements of that center building, which that center building is currently kind of the one, the cross building. It's actually shuttered up and not in use. It might be at one point, but we just need to have a full understanding of implications of firewall separation and distance from property lines. We will get that property line back on there once we figure out where it is and hope to be filing a final subdivision plan maybe this October, but I'll keep you posted. I did have a couple questions. Comment number 12, you just want me to add that as a note, to note all buildings? Okay. The tree protection map, does that need to be on the face of this plan? Because I did submit a separate exhibit. Okay. It's in Excel. I can send you a hard copy. Okay. Okay. No worries. And I did update the date in note 16. I didn't reference the revised square footage, though, so that's what you're looking for. Okay. And property line we talked about, site statistics, got that. I don't think I have anything else to add. Just really here for questions if anybody has anything. Go ahead. I think we brought it up in tech committee, but the top right building where it's proposed, has that been denoted as preliminary? It is. Okay. Sorry. I can't read it from here. But, yes, so there is a section in the northeast top right of the plan that is P1. That was done with the original plan. There are no plans to do that right now, but we didn't want to take it off the plan, so it is denoted as this is a future phase and would require, I think I even said it would require, an additional final development plan when that one goes. So, yeah, again, that's just kind of a placeholder, really. Okay. Do you have any other questions for the applicant? If not, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public comment? All right. Well, we'll bring it back to committee. Yeah, just clarification, Tracy, are you all comfortable with accepting this plan without the property line on it and moving ahead at this point? I think we just wanted to clarify that they still intended to subdivide it. I think it probably has more implications for Vaughan in terms of where the sewer is. If they're subdividing, that lot will need to have sewer access. You're okay with their going with that? Okay. Yes, ma'am. I'll move for recommendation approval of plan MJDP 24-70 Melody Village with the now revised 16 conditions. Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Unanimous. Thank you. Okay. We're going to move on down the agenda. We're moving to PLN MJDP 24-71 Belmont Farm, Unit 7. This property is located out off of Huntley Place in Remington. We have Georgetown Road over here, Citation Road down in this area. This is an apartment complex we saw not too long ago. They're coming back with some revisions on this plan to revise some of the buildings and then the parking. And it changed the open space. That's why they have to do a major plan. So with that, they came back. As you can see on here, the first ten conditions are typical sign-offs. And then, again, this property is located within the Royal Springs Aquifer. And so condition number 11 is to note anything from the Royal Springs Aquifer recommendation. And with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions for staff? All right. Thank you. One real quick, Cheryl. You said it changed the open space. Well, because they added parking. So it kind of changed the open space. They added surface parking, right? Yeah. Added surface parking. And Greg can talk more, but I think there was parking in the buildings in the first level, and they changed some to surface. So that decreased the amount of open space. So, therefore, that becomes a major amendment. So that's why they're back to see us. How much to the church? I'm going to let off the top of my head. I don't know the different numbers, but Greg probably has a better idea. Okay. Okay. Applicant? Good morning. My name is Greg Smorstad with Banks Engineering. So, yes, our open space number, it did change from what it was. Now, I don't have the old plan in front of me to tell you exactly how much it changed, but we still well exceed the amount of open space that were required on this plan. So it changed, but it didn't, you know, it didn't super negatively impact the open space on this plan. And, again, just the last comment on the staff report is the Royal Springs Committee, we have tried to be in contact with them to see when the meeting is going to be scheduled. I haven't heard back on that yet. So we'll continue to try and get that scheduled, hopefully, prior to planning commission, if at all possible. So I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you all have. Any questions for the applicant? All right. If not, let's bring it back to committee. Thank you, applicant. I'll try. You're going to do it? Yeah. I hate to see somebody squint like this. Madam Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2471 with 11 conditions. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Unanimous. Okay, we're going to move ahead. Heading down the agenda, we're at PLNMJDP 2472, Santa Barbara Subdivision. This property is located off of Old Frankfurt Pike and Miles, I'm going to get this right, Miles Point Way. We saw this plan not too long ago. They were adding an addition here on the property and reconfiguring some of the parking to wrap around the structure. They're back again today because the architect, I think, changed the footprint on the building, and therefore it added additional square footage. So now we're back to review it again. So with that, you will see we have the first nine conditions are our typical sign-offs. We have addition of zoning information and use in the site statistics. They explained to us that it was kind of a secret thing at the last meeting, and they don't have that information. So we need to have that information back. Addition of Old Frankfurt Pike landscape buffer, including planting detail. There was an Old Frankfurt Pike corridor plan that went down through here. On previous plans, we had details showing exactly what type of buffer and trees and stuff that were supposed to be planted. We've kind of lost a lot of that information on this plan, so we just want to make sure that they understand that it needs to be put back into the property. Addition of tree protection plan and addition of interior sidewalks from previous plans. We had some additional sidewalks that crossed through to get into the other parking areas, and we'd just like to see those back just for public safety. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Questions for staff? All right. We'll hear from the applicant. Good morning. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Welcome back, Mr. Penn. The only thing really I need to add, items 10, 11, and 12, we'll get those added. That's drafting issues. We get that back on. On the interior sidewalks, we'll be glad to put sidewalks back. Here is one area. Right in the center of that circle, we did have a sidewalk connection there. The applicant does not want to do that because there was a significant grade change, and he says he doesn't even need the sidewalk there. The patio that you see will be accessed from inside the building out to it. It's just kind of a little break area for the people. But the other sidewalks from the parking lot into the building will be added. Where they're talking about this parking area, getting it over to the front door, those will be added, so we'll get those back on. Other than that, we'll make all the changes requested. Any questions for the applicant? None? Thank you. Any public comment? All right, bring it back to committee. Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation approval, Plan MJDP 24-72 Santa Barbara subdivision with the 13 conditions. All right, then moving to second. All in favor? Unanimous. Okay, moving on. Our next one is at the very bottom of page four, and all the conditions wrap over to page five. But PLN MJDP 24-73 Millstone Heights property. This is for property at 309, 315, 317, and 321 East High Street, so downtown. And I kind of orient everybody here. East High Street is at the bottom of the page, and just off this page is where East High Street intersects with Rose Street. Okay, so there are some commercial buildings that front onto Rose and then residential structures across East High Street from this site. This is currently a parking lot, so there's no real landmarks to tell you about. It's just a parking lot. But the good news is they want to infill this surface parking lot with some residential development. I'll go forward a little bit. The proposal is for 12 townhouses, and you can see they all kind of face into here to each other. So an entrance here in the middle of the lot to provide a central access easement through what is currently four tracks across, but will have to be consolidated and then subdivided again going horizontally on the plan. So, again, center access here. These indents are garages, so you would enter to the garage, and then the unit comes back to this line in the back with an 8-foot rear yard. This plan does allow for circulation through. You hang left here at the back, and there's a 10-foot alley that's existing, and then you can exit back out onto East High Street. I guess for the adjoining property owners, they can use that to get to the rear of their properties as well. You'll see on the right-hand side here there are some trees. Those are trees that are existing that the applicant proposes to remove, but the urban forester is trying to work with them to see if they can maintain them. Because it's a parking lot actually on both sides, the tree roots have probably already been impacted in terms of urban construction and surface things happening. So Mr. Sutherland has asked for them to look into how they can try to keep the trees if possible. I'm trying to think what else. We discussed quite a bit of what was going on here, with the filter of the infill redevelopment standards. Along the front, these two units will have to have pedestrian-oriented building features out towards High Street as opposed to interior to the site, and so they are working on that. The applicant also proposes that there be a gate here. They're going to have to work with traffic engineering and the fire department to figure out where exactly the gate can be in terms of not allowing any backup of traffic onto High Street. In addition, they proposed a wall out front, and we discussed how that wall can only be four feet tall and that it needs to be set back from the sidewalk to allow for people to comfortably be on the sidewalk through there and not impacted by the height of the wall. They do understand, I think, most of those conditions. The one other thing that they'll need to do is the planning commission will need to approve the access easement as sole access to the property. So their intent is to subdivide these into lots, and without this center access, they don't really have frontage or access to each lot. So each of these needs this access easement in order to be subdivided, and so they would ask the commission approve or make a finding that that's appropriate in this particular location. The staff recommended postponement. We did have quite a few discussion items in relation to kind of the front of the property here along East High Street, and I don't know that the applicant is here today to represent themselves, so the technical committee also recommended postponement. Okay. There was a big discussion about waste as well. Oh, that's right. So Vaughn reminded me of that. They, at 12 units, generally need a dumpster, and there wasn't really an obvious place for a dumpster to be located that would be accessible for solid waste, and they asked about roll carts and private service, so that may be where they're heading, but typically solid waste still asks for a location to be, you know, denoted on the site that could be used in the future and could be accessible by our trucks, so. All right. Go ahead. Madam Chair, I'm going to move for approval of P.L. I'm not approval, postponement of P.L. M.J.D.P. 2473 Milestone Heights property with just postponement period. 30. 30 conditions. 30. 30 conditions. Yep. Second. It's been approved and seconded. All in favor? All right. Thank you. Next. Okay. We're moving to P.L. M.J.D.P. 2467 Hoover Ford Field Pot. This is property at the fountains at Palomar. Here we're located at Harrodsburg Road and Man O' War. We have Palomar Shopping Center over here. This is the fountains of Palomar. This is our new Publix. This is access off of Harrodsburg Road into Fountain Blue. So we have commercial buildings all along the front, an old commercial building back here. What they're doing is they're proposing a new restaurant right here in the corner adjacent to the fountains that are out there on the property because they did put those in. They did submit a revised plan, and so you'll see that there's revised conditions for this plan. The first 12 conditions are typical sign-offs, and then we had one discussion question because they did the cleanup. The discussion is discuss compliance with Article 16.6 of the zoning ordinance for corner lots, this being located at the corner of Harrodsburg Road and Man O' War with the new Article 16-6. It says vehicle use areas shall not be in the front yard. Right now they're showing vehicle use area here and along here, and this being we're not sure which one is going to be their front yard, and this building should be pulled up closer to one of these roads. And at this current time they did not make any changes to their plan to show that they're meeting that condition. So I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any comments or questions for staff? Here comes the applicant. Maybe he can answer that. I want to hear from the applicant. Some things I want to point out, I understand Article 16-6, no VUA on a corner between the building. Does it say the building or a structure? Yeah. Okay. No, I'm asking does that Article 16-6 say building? No VUA between the building in the front yard or a structure in the front yard. I don't know yet. So? I'm pretty sure it's any lot in that particular zone, no parking is allowed in the front yard. Okay. Any corner lot, basically. So it doesn't speak about a building or structure, it speaks to the lot. Okay. So I guess my concern is that this change to the ordinance, when you apply it to a shopping center that was done before, originally conceived before that ordinance changed, and so there's other lots in this development that are on the corner that have VUA in the front yard because they were done before that changed. Well, why should this lot not be grandfathered in with the remaining rest of the development? And what happens is if you do force them to pull the building up, it's going to cause some problems. The fountain is here. It was on a previous development plan. It had parking in here all the way up to the fountain. Previous development plans had access coming from this lot, which is a bank, but coming from this lot and from here. Previous development plans showed a circulation pattern, not exactly like we have, but similar. With this building, the front entrance is on a corner here, and the problem that causes is if we pull the building up, like they're saying, and get rid of either this parking or this, depending on which way we pull it up, we're creating dead-end drive-ins, and you'll see those at times, but they're definitely not ideal, and when you're in a handicapped spot, it becomes more of a problem. Handicapped people would pull in there, and then if there's no spot, they'd have to back out. They're most likely not going to be able to turn around if this is all full. Let's see. The other problem is here's our entrance. When we pull the building up, if we do it on this side or this side, where are we going to put our handicapped parking? ADA requires on an accessible route, your handicapped parking has to be the closest spot to the entrance of the building. You can't have non-handicapped parking closer. So look it up. So that's another reason we need that access around there. I don't know how we can get around this, but we're looking for your help. If it would require a Board of Adjustment, if there's some kind of variance we can get, we'll seek that. Another option would be to take this fountain and put it on its own lot, and then this is no longer on a corner. It'll have two frontages, but it'll have something. And that would actually in some ways be beneficial to the development. They've already established an HOA for the development. Okay, we can't call it an HOA. There's no homeowners associated with this commercial development. So no more with the HOA. Okay. They've established a covenants and restrictions. They've got an association. They pay CAM fees, which every person out here will be responsible for maintaining this. So it makes sense to me it could be on its own lot. So is that an option? So I think timing-wise this plan would have been approved two years ago, no question. Because the ordinance changed. But your previous development showed a restaurant that was pulled up to the road, two of them, and then patio between them. That was several versions ago. And on those same ones they showed parking all the way up to where that fountain is. So. Commissioner, I want to take the question. So anyway, I'm looking for some help. I think there's. It's this corner lot, and then there's the other corner lot. So we'll have two lots to think about. Yeah, on the other side of Publix. We'll both have the same requirements. And as far as the BOA, the BOA can vary dimensions. But shall not is not variable, correct? Okay, that's why I was just, yeah. Well. So this is your whole lot here, right? So you have the access, the access road, and then you have three bays of parking that's also on your lot, correct, to the north? I'm just trying to, like, okay. I mean, could you orient the building towards Man O' War north of the fountain and just reorient the drive aisles? I don't want to design anything for you or make any assumptions for you, but I don't know. The other thing is if we pull the building up, the entrance can no longer be. It will have to be in the rear. And they want the outdoor covered patio area and the entrance all to be oriented towards the fountain just for interaction and things like that. So I don't know how we can make this work with any building, any type of restaurant, any type of bank, anything that has any kind of drive-throughs. I just don't see how you can make a corner lot work here. I think this keeps the interaction with the fountain open. I don't know. I think it's the best option. Let me ask you this. On Richmond Road we did a board of adjustment for the same type scenario. How is that different here? You had to pick a front yard. You picked a yard and then there was no parking in that yard, right? No. We have parking on all sides. But you have a service road. You're talking Idle Hour. Yeah. Yes. I was going to say, you're talking Idle Hour shopping center and we agreed that that was a service road across the front. So all your buildings, there was no parking in the front. That corner building had no parking in the front. It had it on the side of, I can't think of the name of the street. Okay. We can't really design it here. That's something that you all will have to take and come back with. Well, if you all can set us some time to meet, we would love to meet. Okay. Schedule it with the planning staff. On a grander, the idea obviously is to pull the building up to the roadway network so that over 30 years our buildings become more walkable, our communities become more walkable. Because surrounding everything with the street is inherently less comfortable. So the idea behind it isn't just to frustrate you or anybody else, but it's to encourage that type of thinking on a grander scale. Right. I know over the last 30 years these are the types of developments that everyone's done. So as far as efficiencies, it's easier to do it this way because it's what everybody's done, everybody's comfortable with, and that's what the community is. Right. And typically when you say walkable, you're implying that people walking down the sidewalk can just walk right into the properties. That would be the – and I think that's something we mentioned in tech, was how are you going to connect to the manor ward to eventually connect. Because right now if there's a hotel to the north, people will just walk through the drive aisle. And I think that was another thing we discussed was, again, thinking about it just not holistically but in that way is what the idea, that's what it's supposed to encourage at least. And as I'm sure you all have been up and down through there, there's a very significant grade change from the sidewalks up to the site. We'll look at is there any way to get a sidewalk from the fountains down, kind of meandering down through there. If you saw the Melody Village, that's what they did to make that connection to the park to get into their ADA. Frank has a comment. Commissioner Penn has a comment. Matt, I'm not dishing on you here, but I want to make an observation that the fountains has been planned as you go. When we saw a development plan, the very first development plan, I was out there the night and ate dinner. I don't see anything with the exception of the fountains that was on the original development plan. And so as things have come along, you've adjusted your development plan. Well, now you've got the situation where it's 11 pounds of flour in a 7-pound sack. And what you're trying to make happen here, you don't have room to make that happen. So what my concern of this whole thing is, is that when the fountains go all the way back to TIFs. I mean, that's a long time back ago. And I will tell you that this development right now, from my perspective, and I drove around the whole thing when I was out there because I hadn't had a chance to do it. It's not planned. It's evolved. And so when you do that, you get in a situation like you are with these two corners. And I don't know who has to make the ultimate decision here, but you're asking us to do something. It's just not something we can do. But, you know, respectfully, I disagree that this is not planned. The original had a grocery store on it and had a hotel on it. What happened shortly after that was COVID hit, and it just literally killed the hotel industry. It also killed that previous grocery store that was going in. We've now replaced that with another one. It's bigger, but they did have a grocery store almost under contract originally, and COVID killed that deal. I don't know if any development that we've done in my time that has had as many changes as the Fountains has had. I mean, you've got stacks of development plans. Yeah. Isn't that right? Several, yeah. I don't want to belabor the point. I just think we've got caught up here. Yeah. Okay. Let's go ahead and move on. We'll just look for the applicant to come back with a plan that meets the current zoning. So, okay. Any public comment? I don't think so. All right. Back to the committee. Matt, keep working on them. And good luck. Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation, postponement of plan MJDP 24-74 with the current now still 13 conditions. Second. All right. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Unanimous. Okay. We have a new agenda, PLN MJDP 24-75 William Shelley property, unit 2 in Hollow Creek. We are located, this is New Circle Road. Russell Cave Road is over in this area. We have a service road that comes up the front, which has a leading back to a building that's already constructed. We are proposing to add an addition on the rear portion of the property and then to add additional parking on the property. This property is located within a floodplain. Here's the property, the floodplain lines, floodway lines are all denoted on this plan. So when they originally came in with this building, they had to do a CLOMAR to be able to build this building. And so now that they're adding an addition, they will have to go back through that process again and do a CLOMAR to add the additional building square footage and to add the parking on the rear. They did submit a revised plan, so we did do some cleanups, but we still need to have some additional dimensions of ingress and egress. They have a couple additional driveways located in here that are not dimensioned. We just want to make sure we have all that information. Move height of building into the site statistics box. Denote height of existing retaining wall located in the rear of the building adjacent to the new parking area. They're showing a retaining wall on the rear portion here, and we always like to have the retaining wall labeled as to the height of the wall. Not sure if that's going to create other additional problems with their CLOMAR when adding this additional building square footage and also with the parking that they're proposing here in the rear portion of the building. So I'm not sure if they've started that application clearly for the CLOMAR, but they know that that's required to be able to move forwards in the floodplain. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions for staff or comments? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. I'm back. So we understand the CLOMAR process, and it has not been done yet, but we're working on that now. We won't be able to get any kind of permit, like land disturbance permit, until we get that in place. So we understand that. The wall looks like there's a loading dock there, and there's a wall there on that. We'll get that dimensioned. But other than that, I mean, it's just cleanups items, and we're in agreement. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Public comment? All right. Back to committee. You want a motion? Madam Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2475 with revised 15 conditions. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. Unanimous. All right. Moving on to page 7. Our next item is a reactivated zone change and development plan for property at 940 Higbee Mill Road. And this is PLN MJDP 22-59 Higbee Mill Court Lot 11. So this tract is at the very end of Higbee Mill Road. And just for a refresher, so Higbee Mill comes down this way, and it runs parallel to Man O' War Boulevard in this area of our community, in kind of the southwest portion of Lexington. We have a cul-de-sac or at least a local road over here called Cephas Way with lots that back up to this portion of Higbee Mill. The property is currently zoned R1C, and it is proposed to be rezoned to an R1T zone for townhouses. The applicant is proposing seven townhouses on this tract, and we noted here on the agenda this item was postponed, indefinitely postponed in February of 2023 in order to, for the applicant to get some clarification and about, sorry, clarification. about the right-of-way. So I'm going to zoom in here. The current right-of-way comes down to here and then curves around this tract and actually does connect to Man o' War, but it has been abandoned. There's no roadbed there and the applicant secured their portion or their half of that abandoned right-of-way in 2016, but that still leaves a portion, and it's a little bit clearer on this plan, here along the back of these Cephas Way properties of abandoned right-of-way that can be claimed or accepted by these property owners. The center property owner has already gone through that process and and received their portion of the right-of-way, and then I believe one of the other property owners is in the process of doing that as well, and so we needed to make sure that this plan did not utilize any of the right-of-way that was going to be transferred or could be transferred to these adjoining property owners. So the plan today does show a cul-de-sac ball at the end of Higbee Mill, which on its face does meet the subdivision regulations. However, this cul-de-sac ball is not up to the required size from the subdivision regulations. It has a radius of 25 feet instead of 40, so that means that our larger trucks and so forth wouldn't be able to make the turn all the way around. The seven units are set back about 25 feet and they are staggered here along the right-of-way with, and it's fairly hard to read, this is a driveway to two parking spaces for each lot. So driveway, two parking spaces, driveway, two parking spaces, driveway, two parking spaces, all the way around. On the furthest to the west parcel, that is somewhat able to be accommodated, but as you get closer around the ball of the cul-de-sac, there's actually no driveway anymore. It just really becomes the two parking spaces backing into the right-of-way. So our regulations don't encourage or really don't allow for these front yard spaces to be really almost like a monolithic driveway parking area out front. So there are some conditions with this staff recommendation that need to be addressed. One of them, besides sign offs, is correcting the side yards to comply with Article 8 and Article 15 of the zoning ordinance. Article 8 requires a six-foot side yard, but Article 15 says that you have to match a more restrictive zone setback as well, and the R1C zone on this side is eight feet, so this side yard would need to be eight and this side yard needs to be six. We do need to discuss the, I mentioned the improvements to Higbee Mill Road, since this particular termination doesn't meet Article 6-7 of the land subdivision regulations for the radius, and then also there's a sidewalk that appears to run along the edge of the curb of the cul-de-sac, and again that doesn't meet our land subdivision regulations. And then it terminates here, so there's no avenue for continuing pedestrian activity on that side. And then the last thing is modifying the vehicular use area in the front yards to comply with Article 16-5A and B, which is some of our new parking requirements. And then the last one was discussed place builder, which Daniel has some information for us. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff again. As far as the comprehensive plan, the applicant is seeking to place this kind of within the context of the surrounding neighborhood, so an enhanced neighborhood, primarily single-family detached. The applicant is requesting townhomes in this instance. They opine that it would sort of be a way to get some extra density on the site while staying within the consistency of the neighborhood. So the R1T is not necessarily a recommended zone, but they've made a justification for that, and it could be appropriate at the site if they can meet some of the other setback requirements, design-related requirements. One thing that was noted in the 2022 staff report was public outreach, if any had been conducted, and to our knowledge nothing has happened as of yet, so the applicant should provide some information about that. But as far as kind of the scale and the scope of development with a low-density residential in a neighborhood, staff generally finds that appropriate. But we'll have more information about some specific criteria later on this afternoon, but just wanted to give a little info on the framework there. Any questions for staff? Not? We'll hear from the applicant. It's always a pleasure to appear in front of this body. I also want to thank the staff for all the patience that they've exhibited me here with this particular property with delays and such. The challenge here is the abandoned right-of-way, and who gets it, and why you should get it, and why you shouldn't get it. So back in 16, I bought the property and I petitioned Irving County government for my half of the right-of-way, and they they deeded it to me. At that same time, as it pertains to public outreach, I approached all my neighbors and tried to buy their portion, which they wouldn't sell, nor would they take their deed, which they are entitled to. So when I came down here in 22 again and tried to unravel this. There's a lot of challenges here, folks. Try to unravel this thing and make it work for everybody. I realized that something had to be done with this unclaimed right-of-way, and against my nature, I retained legal counsel and I filed suit. You know, I sued my neighbors for this whole purpose of resolving this right-of-way issue. They still, it's still in court. One of them did eventually take their right-of-way, but the other two, they're still trying or trying to figure it all out. But it doesn't gain me anything to have their right-of-way. It's full of easements. There's a high-pressure gas line here. There's a lot of challenge. Everybody's here. The water company's here. The gas company's here. The Irving County government's got a sewer line through it. Phone, internet, cable. Everybody's here, and it's all in this abandoned right-of-way. So it doesn't, it's not going to get me extra building units to have it. The point I'm trying to make, and the reason I asked for a delay, was to get it resolved because it's all grown up and neglected. It needs to be groomed. I don't want to spend a lot of money and time and energy putting something that needs to be cleaned up. And I told my neighbors, if you sell it to me, I will clean it up for you. Well, they didn't want to sell it to me, and they won't clean it up, and several of them wouldn't even take their portion of the right-of-way. So that's what the challenge is here. You know, as far as public outreach, I don't know what more I can do. I've talked to everyone around me, and there's no opposition to what I'm doing from the neighbors. So I'm not sure what more I can do in good faith. I mean, I'm willing to try, but it's like talking to a stone wall. As far as my plan overall, it meets more zoning and place-building requirements than it doesn't meet, okay? It provides balance. The original plan I brought in here showed a dead-end street. And doing research with the condemnation back in the 80s, there was a court to be built here, and for some reason it never got built. I spent a lot of time at the highway department researching why it didn't get built when it was condemned with man-of-war, and the Kentucky Highway Department says, well, it's not, they didn't have an obligation to do it. Why Urban County Government didn't do it, I don't know. So there's also some other misstatements. Yeah, you do need the microphone. Yeah, we've been recorded, so. Well, then I don't want to go over there, but you can see, Tracy, right there where we've allowed for green spaces in front to be planted with trees, which is a contradiction to what you said earlier. Those little triangles, you know, that's the best we can do. So as it pertains to the court at 50-foot, if it had been built like it was supposed to be built in the condemnation, that's what I would have got in 1982 or 84. That was the standard in 84. And I'm, I'm sorry, Mr. Penn, I know, but if it was done correctly in 84, this is what you got. And I'm trying to solve a mistake. And a lot of times when I do these infield projects, I have to solve mistakes from past, from the past, and I'm trying to do that now. You know, I could just go for a term street, which would be more cost-efficient for me, but instead I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I'm trying to make an impact on the quality of life here, and I'm spending thousands of dollars building a court when I shouldn't have to. And there's no fail-safe to justify me for it other than you all grant me what I'm asking. And again, there's no public opposition here. And this is a concession on me. I really think it should be an apartment building. I'm not going to go into that because I have a lot of staff that are in favor of my townhouse project, okay? But I'm going to spend a lot of money building a court I shouldn't have to build. All right, let's go through some other things. As far as the street trees, which I'm for, this plant, and it got by me, the original plant showed a tree bank, you know, there at the rear, which this one didn't get on there, but we'll see it gets on there next time. A tree bank. I like evergreens. Evergreens are what we're going to need if we're going to be global warming. I think one of, was it you, Ms. Worth, that was tree committee? You're on tree committee? Okay. Well, I'm one of the few, used to be, okay. I'm one of the few advocates for a tree known as a red cedar. There's a lot of argument in the world over red cedars and being trees or weeds, but I'm an advocate for red cedars. I'm an advocate for evergreens. I'm hoping to place in the back here a bank of trees as a balancing act to get, to make sure my site not only is conservationally correct, it looks good, and those people here at NOMI know I build good-looking properties, and I build good-looking developments, and if I get your support, you're going to get a good-looking development here today. What else can I do for this community to make a difference? Mr. Pinn, you got a question for me? I think you have, I mean, it appears that you still have some work to do to comply with everything that's needed, so we don't really have a choice today, even though you, you know, you made a good case, but without having the appropriate requirements met, there's not a lot we can do today other than. Well, I mean, but I want your input, you know, particularly, you know, I want to please you all, but you're not going to get perfection. Well, you have to please our planning staff first. Well, I'm pleasing very well most of the time, you know, but you just, when you do this kind of work, you cannot get perfection, Ms. Barksdale. I mean, you're going to, it's going to come down to quality of judgment and right choices and what's best and what's most advantageous because you're not going to get perfection. To the best of my ability, I've tried to put a balance in here for perfection that not only meets the needs of the community today, but it's going to meet the needs of the community a hundred years from now. You know, this 50-foot court is what was supposed to be built there. I'm asking for what I should have got when the condemnation was done. So, therefore, I seek your all support. Thank you. I didn't mean to ramble on so much, but I do appreciate you all making time for me here today. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. All right. We'll bring it back to committee. Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation postponement of plan MJDP 22-59 Higbee Mill Court lot 11 with the current 12 conditions and hope they continue working to resolve these few issues. Second. All right. We move in second. All in favor? All right. Unanimous. Okay. Moving right along. All right. What's next? Staff? This is FRP 2430 Bluegrass Stockyard LLC property. This is located off of Lyle Industrial Road and South Forbes Road. This is where the we had a development plan. For one, this was where the old stockyard was, but now we have a development plan for Kentucky Utilities to build on here. There was a the old house that sat here on the corner. They're wanting to they proposed to have this subdivided and create two lots, one for the house and one for the rest for Kentucky Utilities. They came in and they've asked for a waiver for the bonding for the improvements to be done on Lyle Industrial Road. At this current time, I do not have a staff report written. I'm gonna work on it. Okay. Well, I didn't. All right. I didn't print it. So, well, come up. Come on up, Kevin. Kevin, come on up and explain. Okay. Good morning. I'm Kevin Phillips with Indus Engineering. I guess welcome back, Mr. Penn. I've been gone so long myself I didn't even know you were gone. So I guess we're both, hopefully, we'll both be welcomed back. So I've given you all a copy of this development plan because I thought it was just more demonstrative than the plan. But the gist of it is the corner lot, the McConnell House, is contemplated for sale to use as the Public Safety Museum. Mr. Bob Terry, he's a police officer here in town, is heading that effort. He's been kind of looking for a spot for quite a while, I think. So he's been offered this. Obviously, it's a very historic home that will be turned into this museum facility. So they're trying to get this flat recorded sooner than later. The construction is well underway on this KU Operations Center. But there is some public improvement along Lyle Industrial Road that is contemplated by this development plan. And it's putting in curb and gutter on the south side of Lyle Industrial that's adjacent to this development, as well as a six-foot sidewalk along that south side that is probably some part of the trail systems. I'm not that familiar with that route, but I think that's the gist of it. And so we're just trying to... The sidewalk, if things go as we are wanting them to, the sidewalk and the street improvements will not be in place at the time of the sale to the Public Safety Organization. So we're just asking for a waiver of substantial completion so that those items, the curb and gutter and the sidewalk, could be bonded in lieu of construction. And that will obviously be built during this completion of the KU Operations Center. So it's just a timing issue is what we're asking for. No, I don't think we're not asking for a waiver of the bonding. Yeah, that's what we needed clarification on, that you will provide 100% surety for those public improvements, and then when they're completed, they'll be reduced to either warranty or punch list items. Yeah, absolutely. Yes, I'm sorry for misunderstanding. We are not asking for a waiver of the bonding. We're just asking for a waiver of substantial completion. Normally, the sidewalks and the curbs have to be in before the property is subdivided. So we're just asking for the opportunity to provide a letter of credit in lieu of those actual improvements being made at this time. So again, just a timing issue. So the sidewalks will be built, the curbs will be built. We're just offering some cash up front instead of... Kevin, we're talking about for the lot where the house is. That's correct. Yeah, yeah, that's correct. So they would be bonding, yes, so they would be bonding the entirety of the length of Lyle Industrial Road. Yeah, I mean the requirement is to have the frontage for each lot on your subdivision to have the infrastructure. So yeah, we are just creating the one lot, but technically there's two lots at the end, so both will be affected by this bonding issue. So do we have a staff recommendation on this? We usually meet with engineering and traffic engineering before we come up with a staff recommendation. So this is basically information. Yeah. Question, Kevin. Yes, sir. The work has been done on the house. I know they put the roof in. Can you tell us what else has been done to that house before? I have no idea. Because part of the deal with KU was that the house would be secured to where water damage and windows and that type of thing. I haven't been in the house. I go by it very frequently. They owe breads right across the street. Yeah. I don't feed hogs. You're missing out on some fruit pies. My concern is the house. Yeah, if KU had agreed to secure the house, I'm sure KU's done that. I mean they obviously have the funds and the means to do it. My point is, can we get somebody to look at that house and see if it's before we let it beaded off to somebody else? That's a problem. Well, I'm not sure. Is that part of the development plan? It is on the development plan. About securing the house? Yes. So it's on the development plan. It doesn't matter who owns it. The condition remains about securing the house. And obviously they're planning on it. I'm not sure we can tie that to the plat. Well, you all still got to look at this. So it's not like we got to make a final decision today. But that was a condition that KU agreed to and that because that house was, you know, all that office stuff behind it's been torn down, which it was supposed to be. But I just like to know before much goes on that they have secured that house. Kevin, would it be possible just to get a letter from your client about the condition of the house and what they've done? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. And maybe their intent to to to not obviously destroy the house, but their their intent to maintain and improve the house is sand mortar. It couldn't stand water inside. Yeah. Yes, that's no problem. I mean, I think we were very supportive of trying to protect the house. And I'm trying to remember, is this the one that Mr. Davis thought he could get state historic preservation funding to help with the preservation of the house? Or did I hallucinate that as a different property? I don't know. I can ask Mr. Terry about that as well, because we'd like to Mr. Perry to realize that he has responsibility for that house. Sure. Yeah. Yes. Kevin. Yes. If that lot doesn't have sewer to it, that'll need to be included in the bond. OK. OK. Any other questions or comments? We don't know if this house is on sewer now. I can't remember. It's been a while since we looked at this. There is sewer adjacent. There's that's the big, huge trunk line is down against the railroad. It won't touch this lot because this lot doesn't extend all the way down to the railroad. But the yeah, but point taken. OK, I feel like I mean, they had offices in there. They probably had restrooms, right? Well, I'm looking at Frank because I know he's been in there. Yeah. I would bet the stockyards is hooked up, but I doubt the house is. I mean, they could have had septic back then. You know, it's very old. If you look where it is, it would have been a little bit of a challenge. But yeah, there's a sewer, like I said, sewer adjacent as long as it's available. And so it'd be a lateral cost of a lateral. So public safety, 9-11, first responders, please, please. Well, for the rest of the public safety, we also need all the buildings on. Do it for the children. Public health. Do it for the children. All right. If it's on the trail stop, it might be a pit stop. OK. All right. Thank you so much. And we'll bring it back to committee unless we have some public comment. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Committee. Is there anything for us to act on here or is this just. Yes. We have two. No, it's weird. This was information only. OK, gotcha. All right. Moving on to page eight, postponed and continued items. We have one that has a revised conditions for the Gibbons property. Lot five. We're filling up out here. It's all I can say. This is the Gibbons property at the corner of Georgetown Citation Boulevard. This is Remington. We have another Publix. We have Babylon, a bank, a car wash, a dental office. And I believe it's a coffee house and Panda Express, which are in right now for review. Now, this is city barbecue right here. So they have this property zone B3. So this was part of the next one. There we go. This zone B3. But this was one of the questions as to no vehicle use screening in the front yard. But we found the final development plan that had all the had a development plan already on it to square footage for the lot. So now they're coming in for the amended. Yeah, now we're coming in for the final development plan for the city barbecue. So with this, they did submit a revised plan. We came up with revised conditions. We have the first 12, which are typical sign offs. We need to correct plan title to match staff report on the site statistics box. They have two decimal points and that needs to be cleared up. Addition of site information for lots three and four. Like I said, three and four right now and for the coffee house and Panda Express. And those are being there's one on the counter and one on my table for review. Correct floor area ratio calculation for lot one and the site statistics box to pick location of street cross section on plan face. We always like to see where the cross sections that they put on the plan are on the development plan. Remove the miscellaneous notes, lots four and six. They have a bunch of leaders with some notes on here. When we start adding the other adjacent properties, we need to be able to see the layouts for the adjacent properties. Excuse me. So we need to see those properties and then we need to correct plan type to amend it. Final development plan since we're amending another lot on this development plan. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. So these are really all documentation issues, documentation on the plan issues, nothing substantive. The substantive issue was the 30% in the B3 zone of FAA, not FAA lot coverage. And so we at first came forward and said, you're going to have to meet it because you didn't have a final development plan on any of these lots. So they had about half of if you go back to the larger plan, they've had about half of their lots designed. So we have the Valvoline, the Bank, the Car Wash, and then a bunch of the lots in the middle there. But it leaves two lots at this end and two lots at this end and then the barbecue place that we have now. We did find their original preliminary subdivision plan listed square footages proposed for each lot. And so planning staff was comfortable saying that that created their vested interest in a particular lot coverage that didn't meet the 30% that had been approved and was already in process. Otherwise, there's really nothing for us to say that they were at all vested in the property in any particular development without that one thing. So that will allow this development to complete under the other requirements. Basically, if they're meeting the FAR, the lot coverage that they noted on that preliminary subdivision plan as a minimum, then we'll be OK. But they can't go below it. All right. Any questions for staff? All right. Do we have the applicant? I just my name is Jeff Lantron with CESO representing City Barbecue on this project. I don't have much to add. I think all of the conditions are agreeable and we've been working with the other departments for sign off. So I think what we've provided here is essentially right where we need to be. But happy to answer any questions. Any questions for the applicant? No. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I take it no public comments. So we're back to committee. Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation of approval of plan MJDP 24-46 Gibbons property lot five with the now revised 20 conditions. And thank you for the revision. All right. Can we get a second? Second. OK. All in favor. You know this. You know, this is a farm man or war was born. Yeah. But I wouldn't suggest you rename the barbecue place. OK. Moving on to our last item for today. There's a staff item at the end of your agenda. And we'll just explain this and have a report for you hopefully next week. This is a minor development plan that has been filed for the Chick-fil-A property on Nicholasville Road. And the reason the staff is referring it to the commission, technically it meets the ordinance in terms of what can be a minor in terms of not changing X, Y or Z. So certain things bump it to a major. They're meeting those. But the issue comes about the building is staying the same, which is why it's kind of a light gray. This is the entrance to their shopping, the shopping center where used to be a Kmart. Now it's the Malibu Jacks. And then there's another entrance down here that's open and they're building. And they currently have circulation that goes around the around the structure, but they want to modify it to allow for again. We heard this just recently. More stacking for the drive through. So the proposal is for someone to enter the drive through here, two lanes. The two lanes come all the way around, circle around the building, then pick up your food here. And then exit would either be back this way or down the row and again out to the north or circle the, I guess there's a median here, circle the median and get out at the light, here's the median. This involves obviously extending quite a bit of the drive through. It also involves reworking this parking lot. Currently the parking lot is not angled, it's 90 degree parking. And someone can enter at both ends and exit at both ends. So this makes it one way, entering from this drive aisle through. They do show a kind of a holding area where the drive through would stop, allow vehicles to exit the parking lot. There are a few issues that we, as a staff, don't feel comfortable approving. And they are the entrance here off Nicholasville Road. When you come in, I'm sure many of you have been through this shopping center. When you come in, there's a angled median that kind of aims somebody this way, but it's also pretty wide open. It's a reciprocal access easement, but it allows a person to get to the Red Lobster restaurant over here. There is, well, the applicant's proposal would include a curb here, which would, in essence, eliminate this movement into the shopping center and force all the traffic over to Red Lobster. These are painted parking spaces currently. So, in essence, their improvements change the use on the adjacent property. And the adjacent property owner is not part of the amendment and actually have not been willing to participate in an amendment, which has led to Chick-fil-A trying to get all of their activity on their lot as well as a portion of a lot that they lease. So they lease this lot or area from the shopping center and then they own this portion. I guess from the staff's perspective, we're concerned about the spillover impact on the adjoining property owner without them being aware of it. So by having a public hearing or a public meeting with the planning commission and inviting them to attend, we can at least ensure that the adjoining property owner is aware of the change. We do understand that that property owner will still have access in and out through this access point, as well as they have an access point down on Will Hite as well. It doesn't really show there, but so if you can imagine in this photo, you can see one line of the drive-through stacking here. But instead of one, you'd have two, and no way for a car to get through here anymore, so, yes. So this entrance drive here has a light. This is a bank, I think it's Central Bank, Whitaker Bank, thank you. And down here is the ham store, what's it called? Honeybake Ham, thanks. Canes and Wendy's are across the street, yeah. Yes, traffic engineering, I mean, traffic's already a mess out there. What's your impact of- Yeah, so there's a little more, so our staff had worked with the applicant probably six, eight months ago, and some of the other, well, let me start even further. So there's an existing development plan that actually reorients that median. It makes it more standard, things make sense, but it requires the approval of the actual landowner, which is the Red Lobster. They own that land, so Chick-fil-A's not allowed to do any changes unless they agree to it. So we worked with Chick-fil-A to try to come up with some sort of middle ground that would maybe function as their. Part of that also relied on, because those two main entrances off Nicholasville Road are 24 feet wide each. So we proposed closing one of them and then making it a two-way there. The bottom one would be two-way. The state agreed that it would be a good idea, but wouldn't agree to closing an entrance without the approval of the landowner at which it adjoins. So with that, it would have still been awkward, would have functioned a little better. And there's a couple other small details that we talked about including, but really this comes down to them trying to achieve what they want with a space that they just don't have the agreement of the adjacent landowner for the entrance to really work out the way it would be most desired. So it's not the prettiest looking plan ever. There probably are some alterations bringing where the drive-thru entrance is. I would talk with Jeff, our director, as well. We would probably propose bringing it towards that median so you can, well, let me, So we had talked about, and I haven't talked to the applicant about this, moving this up again to allow that. Because right now, she's right, I think they're proposing like a median, so essentially effectively cuts this off. I'm sure that's not desirable because they want the most stacking as possible. And it is true, occasionally the stacking from the existing orientation does back out on the Nicksville Road. So this would help solve that. Mm-hm, and yeah, so, and I think that one of the things we'd also discussed was altering this to one way. Actually, the existing development plan, this is supposed to be one way. There's supposed to be an extension of the sidewalk up to here to make it one way in. That wasn't initially built, but, and again, this was all reoriented and looked really nice, but you can't build it off your property. So it's a very interesting problem. I'm sure that's as they've found out. So I think there's a solution overall, but it's just not the prettiest without cooperation from everybody in a shopping center. So the access there on Nicholson Road, am I presuming that's on Red Lobster property? It is, it is on Red Lobster's property. They have sort of a flag shaped lot. So it's this, maybe 100 feet here, and then as it goes back around the Honeybaked Ham store, it gets wider. So, well, we asked the applicant, well, we're going to send him a letter. And if Chick-fil-A has their contact information, it would be a lot quicker if we could email it to him and invite them. Because the property owner's address is in Florida, so. What I was trying to do is to think about the public comment and how that puts pressure on Red Lobster to agree to some of this. Because they're holding all the cards. They are holding the cards. And what I've been asked several times is, can we get a sign? And they're in a B6P zone, so they can't get a sign. They don't get their own sign. They share a shopping center sign. So they need to work with the shopping center if they want to be on a larger sign. But I think that's a good thing, and I think that's a good thing. And I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. So they need to work with the shopping center if they want to be on a larger sign. But there's not been a cooperation for probably decades. So it's kind of now landing in Chick-fil-A's lap to try to negotiate a solution that, you know, the shopping center and the Red Lobster have created some animosity amongst themselves for a period of time. It does, but I think from our perspective that if the staff were just to approve it, Red Lobster would know nothing. So at least if we invite them to a public meeting, they have the opportunity to come and, you know, either justify what they've done or ask for something, a change. So. Okay. Yeah, with that curb and that current median, that curb goes in the one access is almost nonexistent anyway. Yes. Yeah, and of course that was the thinking when we were wanting to close that access because it wouldn't be as useful anyway. It would kind of work together. Yeah, there would need to be additional signage and markings and whatnot. Okay. All right. Is there any other questions? There's nothing for us to act on here, right? No, it'll be on your agenda for next week. Next week. Okay. All right. Well, we'll see about getting Red Lobster at the table otherwise. Yeah. Okay. Do we want to hear from the applicant or is it just information? Oh, it's the applicant here. Okay. Did you want to speak? Does that give Red Lobster enough time? I think she's here just listening. Well, the other option would be to delay it until November, the 14th of November. Okay, does the applicant want to speak since you're here? You're going to mail this today. It's not going to happen in a week's time. Good to see you guys again. Shine a day with InterPlan. Yeah, I don't have too much to add. Obviously, we are aware this isn't the greatest plan, but just trying to work in the space that we have in order to make something work as well. We'll look at moving the entrance closer up. I don't think there's an issue with that at all. But, yeah, if you have any questions. I do have a question, though. If you block that one entrance and somebody turns in to go to Malibu Jacks and Red Lobster's parking lot is completely full, their only option is to go directly through the Red Lobster lot and then turn left? Or how does that happen? Oh, that's not. I mean, because, you know, basically you're going. Let's see. Wait a minute. I'm trying to remember. There's parking, parking, and then the entrance to the restaurant. Is that right? Next. You can't really see what I'm. Because I'm thinking if they have to. I'm all the way down. Yeah. And so if they come in and they're trying to go to Malibu Jacks and Red Lobster is completely full, they would have to come in front of the restaurant. And so you're going across pedestrian traffic to get to another space. I think that's one of the reasons we've talked about potentially moving the entrance up to the end of the median or closer to maintain two-way. The entrance for Chick-fil-A. Correct. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. I'm sorry. This is not for you. This is really for staff. So we're hoping that Red Lobster will come to the table. Will the shopping center owner come to the table? Yeah. He's been involved. Okay. Mr. Mashney. Yeah. That's actually who we're leasing that additional property from. Right. So the Chick-fil-A is almost, it encompasses almost the entire lot without surface parking. All of their surface parking is on the shopping center lot. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I guess we'll see you next week. Okay. And then long-range planning had some tips and tricks to share, I think, about something. Maybe. Maybe. I wanted to take a second and just make everybody aware, since the master plan draft is on the website, I wanted to make sure everybody knew how to access it and download any components or pieces. It's a big file, so it's broken up into its respective chapters. But if you go to urbangrowthlex.com, on the front page, the document is there. And if you want to choose each of the chapters, there's a drop-down right there that brings up each of them. And then right here is a link to download if you want to download them for offline viewing. And then if you scroll down, the appendices sit below. In this one, there's five appendices, and so I wanted to make sure those are there as well. The same, you can drop down and choose through the appendices and then download any of them that you wish. But I just wanted to take a second and make sure that each of you knew it was there, that the legal ad has been submitted for the public hearing on the 17th. This notice has gone out by e-mail to everybody who has given us an e-mail address for the last year for every public input meeting that we've been to. And let's see, what else? We've notified the other government divisions that have been a part of this over the last year as well that there's a draft available, sent the e-mail to council and their aides and staff. So it will probably be going out in some of their newsletters over the next few weeks. But just wanted to make sure, in case you all have any questions, to shoot me an e-mail at any time and let me know. The hearing is in the council chambers at 1.30 on your work session date of October the 17th. And then we expect typically you all have liked to continue those public hearings and come back two weeks later for review. And so we expect to finalize that on the 31st, hopefully, for action. But other than that, just wanted to make sure everybody was aware and knew technologically how to work everything and where to find it. So if you all have any questions. Okay. Good deal. Okay. Welcome back, Mr. Benton. Thank you all. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you. Is there anything else? If not, can I get a motion to adjourn? Do we need a motion? Okay. Meeting adjourned.