# Planning Commission Subdivision Committee - November 7, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · November 7, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6264 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6264?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-11-07 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 29, 2026 - **Length**: 23,014 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 November 7, 2024, at 8:30 AM in the Phoenix Building's 3rd Floor Conference Room to review twelve subdivision-related agenda items. The committee took twelve votes during the session, addressing various development proposals throughout Lexington-Fayette County. One member of the public provided comments during the meeting. The committee approved six subdivision items, including Givens Property Outlot 1, Fritz Farm Tract C, Arthur E. Abshire Property, Lexmark International Section 2 Lot 2, South Broadway Place Phase IIC, and Milestone Heights Property. Five items were postponed for future consideration: Patchen Wilkes Unit 1 Phase 2, Patchen Wilkes Unit 2, The Maxwell (Lynhurst Subdivision), George West Estate Property, and Lane Allen Park Lots 2 & 3. The committee denied one application for the proposed Chick-fil-A development on Harrodsburg Road. The meeting addressed a diverse range of development projects across the county, from residential subdivisions to commercial properties, demonstrating the ongoing growth and development activity in the Lexington area. The mix of approvals, postponements, and one denial reflects the committee's careful review process for subdivision applications. ## Attendance All Commission members were present for the November 7, 2024 meeting. No absences or late arrivals were recorded. **Present:** • Vaughan Adkins • Eric Sutherland • Ben Cornett • Brooke Gray • Shannon Ison • Embry Beatty • David Filiatreau • Rob Volpenhein • Scott Burton • Scott Thompson • Boyd Sewe • Craig Prater • Chris Dent • Holly Salzarcarillo • Traci Wade • Daniel Crum • Chris Chaney • Cheryl Gallt • Eve Miller • Paula Schumacher • Tracy Jones **Absent:** None **Late:** None A total of 21 members participated in the meeting, representing full attendance for the Commission. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on twelve items during the November 7, 2024 meeting, with six approvals, five postponements, and one disapproval. **Approvals:** • **PLN-MJDP-24-00077** - Givens Property, Outlot 1 was approved by voice vote with 24 conditions, changing condition 23 to "resolve" and condition 24 to "denote" • **PLN-MJDP-24-00078** - Fritz Farm, Tract C was approved by voice vote on motion by the Chairman with 14 revised conditions • **PLN-MJDP-24-00080** - Arthur E. Abshire Property was approved by voice vote on motion by the Chairman with 16 revised conditions, changing condition 16 to reference the Division of Engineering • **PLN-MJDP-24-00082** - Lexmark International, Section 2, Lot 2 was approved by voice vote on motion by the Chair with 17 conditions • **PLN-MJDP-23-00040** - South Broadway Place, Phase IIC reapproval was approved by voice vote • **PLN-MJDP-24-00073** - Milestone Heights Property was approved by voice vote on motion by the Chairman with 18 conditions, changing conditions 17 and 18 to "resolve" and eliminating condition 19 **Postponements:** • **PLN-MJSUB-24-00008** - Patchen Wilkes, Unit 1, Phase 2 was postponed on motion by the Chair with 13 attached conditions • **PLN-MJSUB-24-00009** - Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2 was postponed by voice vote • **PLN-MJDP-24-00079** - The Maxwell (Lynhurst Subdivision) was postponed with 23 revised conditions • **PLN-MJDP-24-00083** - George West Estate Property was postponed on motion by the Chairman with 15 revised conditions, changing condition 15 from "discuss" to "resolve" • **PLN-MJDP-24-00081** - Lane Allen Park, Lots 2 & 3 was postponed on motion by the Chairman, deleting condition 6 **Disapproval:** • **PLN-MNDP-24-00025** - The motion to disapprove widening the access point for Chick-fil-A on Harrodsburg Road failed by voice vote on motion by the Chairman All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded individual vote tallies. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one community member addressed the Commission regarding local safety concerns. Ralph Goetz spoke about safety issues at Winchester Road, focusing on pedestrian safety and drainage problems in the area. Goetz highlighted concerns about student crossings and referenced past fatalities that have occurred at this location. He also raised issues with drainage infrastructure that may be contributing to unsafe conditions for pedestrians. *Note: Transcript timestamps were not available for this public comment period.* ## Contested Items The Commission addressed one contested item during the November 7, 2024 meeting involving a procedural dispute over infrastructure modifications. **Chick-fil-A Access Point Widening Request** The primary point of contention centered on a request to widen the access point for the Chick-fil-A restaurant located on Harrodsburg Road. The debate focused on procedural concerns rather than the merits of the specific request itself. Committee members raised two main areas of disagreement during their deliberations. First, commissioners expressed concern about establishing a precedent through approval of this widening request, questioning whether similar future requests would create an expectation of automatic approval for comparable infrastructure modifications. Second, the potential impact on traffic flow patterns in the area became a point of debate, with commissioners discussing whether the proposed widening would improve or potentially complicate existing traffic conditions on Harrodsburg Road. The discussion revealed differing perspectives among committee members regarding the appropriate standards and criteria for evaluating such access point modification requests. Some commissioners appeared to focus on the immediate practical benefits of improved traffic flow for the specific business location, while others emphasized the broader implications of the decision for future similar requests and overall traffic management policy. The nature of the dispute remained procedural throughout the deliberations, with commissioners debating the process and precedent-setting aspects rather than engaging in fundamental disagreements about the underlying transportation or business development issues. The structured discussion allowed committee members to air their concerns about both the immediate request and its potential long-term implications for similar infrastructure modification requests in the jurisdiction. *Note: Specific timestamp information was not available in the provided meeting data for this contested item.* ## Patchen Wilkes, Unit 1, Phase 2 The Commission discussed the preliminary subdivision plan for Patchen Wilkes, Unit 1, Phase 2 (PLN-MJSUB-24-00008). Tracy Jones served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The discussion centered on the proposed street layout and lot configuration for the subdivision development. However, the presentation and deliberation revealed several unresolved issues that prevented the Commission from moving forward with approval. Committee members raised questions about floodplain considerations affecting the proposed development. The exact nature of the floodplain concerns was not detailed in the available materials, but these issues were significant enough to warrant further investigation before proceeding. Additional concerns were raised regarding the lot configuration proposed in the preliminary plan. The specific aspects of the lot layout that required further review were not specified in the summary materials. Due to these outstanding questions about both floodplain impacts and lot configuration, the committee recommended postponing action on the Patchen Wilkes, Unit 1, Phase 2 preliminary subdivision plan. This postponement will allow staff and the applicant time to address the identified concerns and provide additional information to resolve the floodplain and configuration issues. The Commission accepted the committee's recommendation, and the item was officially postponed pending resolution of the outstanding technical questions. No timeline was provided for when the item would return to the Commission for further consideration. ## Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2 The Commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJSUB-24-00009, a preliminary subdivision plan for Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2. Tracy Jones served as the key speaker for this item, presenting details about the proposed street layout and lot configuration for the development. The discussion centered on technical aspects of the subdivision design, with particular attention paid to how the proposed layout would function within the existing neighborhood framework. Commission members examined the street patterns and the arrangement of individual lots within the proposed Unit 2 development. However, significant concerns emerged during the review process regarding the project's compliance with existing conditional zoning restrictions. These compliance questions proved substantial enough that the committee felt additional time was needed to properly evaluate the proposal against the established zoning requirements. The conditional zoning restrictions appear to place specific limitations on how the property can be developed, and there were uncertainties about whether the current preliminary subdivision plan adequately addresses these constraints. Rather than proceed with an incomplete review, the Commission determined that postponement would allow for a more thorough examination of these compliance issues. The Commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of the Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2 preliminary subdivision plan. This postponement will provide the opportunity to resolve questions about conditional zoning compliance before the item returns for further review. The delay ensures that all regulatory requirements are properly addressed before any approval decisions are made on the subdivision proposal. The postponement reflects the Commission's commitment to thorough review of development proposals, particularly when questions arise about compliance with existing zoning conditions that may affect the project's viability or impact on the surrounding area. ## Givens Property, Outlot 1 The Commission discussed development plans for Givens Property, Outlot 1 under case number PLN-MJDP-24-00077. The proposed development involves construction of a convenience store and gas station on the property. Tracy Jones served as the key speaker presenting information about the development proposal to the Commission members. The discussion centered on the development plan's compliance with local regulations and environmental considerations. A significant focus of the review involved recommendations from the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee, which had provided specific conditions related to protecting the local water resources given the proposed gas station use. The Commission evaluated how the development would address aquifer protection measures, particularly important given the sensitive environmental nature of the Royal Springs area and the potential impact of fuel storage and dispensing operations on groundwater quality. Following their review of the proposal and consideration of the aquifer committee's input, the Commission reached a decision to approve the development plan. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met to address the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee's recommendations for environmental protection. The conditional approval ensures that the convenience store and gas station development will proceed with appropriate safeguards in place to protect the local water resources while allowing the commercial development to move forward as proposed. The Commission's decision represents a balance between supporting economic development in the area while maintaining environmental stewardship of the Royal Springs Aquifer system through the implementation of recommended protective measures. ## Fritz Farm, Tract C The Commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00078, Fritz Farm, Tract C, which involved a development plan for new buildings and parking at the Fritz Farm location. Adam Bender served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the development proposal to the Commission. The discussion centered on the planned construction of new buildings and associated parking facilities for Tract C of the Fritz Farm development. The item had previously been reviewed by the committee level, where it received a recommendation for approval. However, this approval came with specific conditions that the developer would need to meet as part of the project implementation. During the Commission meeting, members reviewed the development plans and considered the committee's recommendation along with the attached conditions. The discussion focused on the proposed building designs, parking arrangements, and how the new development would integrate with the existing Fritz Farm project. Following their review and discussion of the proposal, the Commission voted to approve the Fritz Farm, Tract C development plan. The approval maintained the conditions that had been recommended by the committee, ensuring that the developer would need to satisfy these requirements as the project moves forward. The approval allows the Fritz Farm, Tract C development to proceed with the construction of the new buildings and parking facilities as outlined in the submitted plans, subject to compliance with the specified conditions. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* ## The Maxwell (Lynhurst Subdivision) The Commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00079, a development plan for The Maxwell, a proposed six-story residential complex in the Lynhurst Subdivision. Matt Carter served as the key speaker presenting the project details to the Commission. The discussion centered on the development plan for this multi-story residential building, which would represent a significant addition to the Lynhurst area. During the review process, Commission members raised several concerns that prevented approval of the project as presented. Primary issues focused on questions regarding site access arrangements and whether the proposed design met current design standards for the area. These technical concerns required additional review and clarification before the Commission could move forward with approval. The committee that initially reviewed the project had recommended postponement, citing the need to resolve the outstanding questions about access and design compliance. The Commission accepted this recommendation during their discussion. As a result of the unresolved technical issues, the Commission voted to postpone consideration of The Maxwell development plan. This postponement will allow the developer and city staff additional time to address the concerns about site access and ensure the design meets all applicable standards before bringing the project back for Commission review. The postponement means The Maxwell project will need to return to a future Commission meeting once the identified issues have been resolved and the necessary revisions or clarifications have been made to the development plan. ## Arthur E. Abshire Property The Commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-24-00080 for the Arthur E. Abshire Property development plan. Katie Beard served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the Commission. The proposed development centers on constructing two apartment buildings with associated parking facilities on the Arthur E. Abshire Property. The application underwent review by the appropriate committee prior to the Commission meeting. Following their evaluation, the committee issued a recommendation for approval of the development plan, though this approval came with specific conditions that must be met by the developer. The exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available meeting materials. The Commission ultimately approved the Arthur E. Abshire Property development plan, accepting the committee's recommendation and the accompanying conditions. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item, preventing more detailed coverage of the discussion points, concerns raised, or the specific conditions attached to the approval.* ## Lexmark International, Section 2, Lot 2 The Commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00082, a development plan for Lexmark International, Section 2, Lot 2. Greg Smorstad served as the key speaker for this item. The discussion centered on proposed improvements to the Lexmark International facility, with particular focus on building square footage modifications and parking enhancements. The development plan outlined specific changes intended to support the company's operational needs at this location. The Planning Commission had previously reviewed this proposal and provided their recommendation to approve the development plan, though their approval came with certain conditions that would need to be met as part of the project implementation. Following the presentation and discussion of the proposal details, the Commission moved forward with approving the Lexmark International development plan. The approval allows the company to proceed with their planned improvements to the Section 2, Lot 2 property, subject to any conditions established during the planning review process. The development represents continued investment in the local business infrastructure, with the building and parking improvements designed to enhance the facility's functionality for Lexmark International's operations. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* ## George West Estate Property The Commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00083 regarding the George West Estate Property development plan. The discussion centered on proposed improvements including a new building, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the property. Matt Carter served as the key speaker presenting information about the development proposal. The project involved multiple components aimed at enhancing the property's infrastructure and usability. However, the committee identified several concerns regarding the proposal's compliance with existing zoning ordinances. These compliance questions were significant enough to warrant further review and analysis before the Commission could move forward with any approval process. Due to the unresolved questions about zoning compliance, the committee recommended postponing consideration of the George West Estate Property development plan. This postponement will allow staff time to address the regulatory concerns and ensure the proposal meets all applicable zoning requirements. The Commission accepted the committee's recommendation and officially postponed the item. No timeline was specified for when the George West Estate Property discussion would return to the Commission's agenda, though it will presumably be rescheduled once the zoning compliance issues have been resolved. The postponement reflects the Commission's commitment to ensuring all development proposals fully comply with municipal zoning ordinances before receiving approval to proceed. ## Lane Allen Park, Lots 2 & 3 The Planning Commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00081 regarding the development plan for Lane Allen Park, Lots 2 & 3. The proposal involves a lotting layout for 25 single-family homes on the property. Bruce Simpson served as a key speaker during the discussion of this development plan. The item was presented as a discussion item rather than requiring formal action at this meeting. However, the committee identified several outstanding issues that prevented moving forward with the proposal at this time. Specifically, commissioners raised questions about the historic nature of an existing home on the property, which may require additional review or preservation considerations. Additionally, concerns were raised about floodplain studies that need to be completed or clarified before the development can proceed. Due to these unresolved questions regarding both the historic home and floodplain analysis, the committee recommended postponing further consideration of the Lane Allen Park development plan. This postponement will allow time for the applicant to address the historic property concerns and complete any necessary floodplain studies before returning to the commission for continued review. The 25-unit single-family home development will need to resolve these preliminary issues before the Planning Commission can provide substantive review of the lotting layout and overall development plan. ## South Broadway Place, Phase IIC The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-23-00040, a reapproval request for South Broadway Place, Phase IIC. The application sought reapproval of the previously approved development with no proposed changes to the original plan. Kevin served as the key speaker presenting the item to the Commission. The project had previously received approval and was now requesting reapproval to maintain its development rights. The Planning Commission's committee had already reviewed the reapproval request and recommended that the Commission grant reapproval for the project. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion, as the request involved no modifications to the previously approved development plan. The Commission approved the reapproval request for South Broadway Place, Phase IIC, allowing the project to proceed under its original approved parameters. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* ## Milestone Heights Property The Commission discussed development plan PLN-MJDP-24-00073 for the Milestone Heights Property during the November 7, 2024 meeting. The discussion centered on proposed modifications to the development plan, specifically addressing the reorientation of townhouses and improvements to internal circulation patterns within the development. The item focused on technical aspects of the site layout, with particular attention paid to how the townhouse units would be positioned and how traffic would flow through the development. The reorientation of the townhouses appears to have been a key consideration in the planning review process. Following the discussion, the committee provided a recommendation for approval of the development plan, though this approval came with attached conditions. The specific nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available information, but they likely address technical requirements or modifications needed to meet planning standards. The Commission ultimately approved the Milestone Heights Property development plan, accepting the committee's recommendation and the associated conditions. This approval allows the project to move forward in the development process, subject to meeting the specified requirements. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed speaker information were not available for this agenda item.* ## Chick-fil-A on Harrodsburg Road The Commission considered agenda item PLN-MNDP-24-00025, a request to widen the access point for Chick-fil-A on Harrodsburg Road. Alan Wiley served as a key speaker during the discussion of this development proposal. The request centered on modifications to the restaurant's existing access point to accommodate increased traffic flow. The item had previously been reviewed by the appropriate committee, which recommended disapproval of the widening request. The primary concern cited was the potential for setting a precedent that could lead to similar requests from other businesses along the corridor. Committee members expressed reservations about approving access point modifications that could establish expectations for future development proposals in the area. The precedent-setting nature of the decision appeared to be a significant factor in the committee's recommendation against the project. Following discussion, the Commission denied the request to widen the Chick-fil-A access point on Harrodsburg Road, upholding the committee's recommendation for disapproval. The denial means the restaurant will need to maintain its current access configuration or explore alternative solutions that would not raise the same precedent concerns identified by the reviewing committee. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00008** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Patchen Wilkes, Unit 1, Phase 2 - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00009** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00077** — passed (0-0): Approval of Givens Property, Outlot 1 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00078** — passed (0-0): Approval of Fritz Farm, Tract C - **PLN-MJDP-24-00079** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of The Maxwell (Lynhurst Subdivision) - **PLN-MJDP-24-00080** — passed (0-0): Approval of Arthur E. Abshire Property - **PLN-MJDP-24-00082** — passed (0-0): Approval of Lexmark International, Section 2, Lot 2 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00083** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of George West Estate Property - **PLN-MJDP-24-00081** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Lane Allen Park, Lots 2 & 3 - **PLN-MJDP-23-00040** — passed (0-0): Reapproval of South Broadway Place, Phase IIC - **PLN-MJDP-24-00073** — passed (0-0): Approval of Milestone Heights Property - **PLN-MNDP-24-00025** — failed (0-0): Disapproval of widening access point for Chick-fil-A on Harrodsburg Road --- ## Full transcript Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Do you have any comments or questions for Ms. Gahl? Do you have any comments or questions for Ms. Gahl? I guess this is really more of a question for the applicant, but where were the alleys that they removed from the previous plan? It's a totally different lot configuration, so the alleys are, it's not, they wouldn't have alleys on this layout. They had a totally different layout. So everything changed. Everything changed. So I guess one other question, although I don't know where we are in terms of what plans have to adhere to on this, but in terms of a complete streets plan, does this need to meet those standards and does it? So the complete streets manual is in process, but it's not been adopted yet, so we follow the existing subdivision regulations and whatever those cross sections that are adopted are. So they do have, you know, sidewalks and streets that meet, proposed that meet the width of streets meet the width and the, I guess, curbs, gutters, sidewalks of a cross section. I don't know, yeah, I don't know In terms of a complete street for a local street, what else we might include with that? I guess the potential of a bicycle lane on the collector street and if that could be incorporated. The alleys do not change. The alleys are recorded. The houses that are built that use the alleys will continue to use the alleys. It's the developer's plan that these new lots will use the street in front of them. This section will not add more cars to those back driveways, the alleys on the people already out there. So, you know, as you look at that condition, you know, we're not removing anything. We do show the easements as recorded on that plat that stays the same. The new plan is pretty much to kind of screen that alley off, even though it's on a recorded easement on these lots, the plan is to not use it, to screen it. With the What else would I talk about? The lots, last item, 20 through 24, the 100 year AE floodplain, I've shared that with the client right now. Tracy was saying the ordinance does not prohibit floodplain on lots. So I'm telling them it's the preference of the staff to not do it, but we're still debating that. And then it's, I guess it's really down to our 1,000 foot length of street. That one, the clients haven't resolved what they want to do. We've talked with Tracy Jones. She says we can request a waiver, we'd have to look at how the justification would work out as we present to you. We've given them a dozen probably different layouts. This is the one they like. Serpentines the street through there, doesn't make it a direct cut through, provides I guess you want to call it traffic calming, even though there's talk about it needing to break it up, I guess it's 1,000 foot length. I did want to know, is 1,000 foot length for the local streets? My collector street out front might be 1,000 between intersections as we wrap around the back of this. So I wanted to make sure it was, it says residential, but I wanted to make sure it was just the local homes, local streets. I'll have to look at the section again. Yeah, I know it'd be nicer. Right now what we did here, so the street at the bottom is the collector feed through here, it'll tie over to the next plan you're about to see. We designed a 30 foot HOA area, landscape screening walls, fences, whatever would go in this 30 foot area and make it really attractive. Then put all the houses behind them. You would not have any driveways accessing onto Patch and Wilkes. Visually, that's going to be a boulevard type street, all landscaped. No driveways. So then we've got to figure out if we can do that with 1,000 feet or not. We understand the postponement. We'll ask for that next week. So just to confirm, it does meet the current regulations? No. It does not. But we are referencing the current regulations, not the future regulations. Except for the 1,000 feet between street intersections. That's what we're going to be working on through a possible postponement. Do we have any more questions? I'll ask one. Are these units going to be individual units? Yes, single family homes. Detached. It's R1C. There's half of an access easement on the rear of those lots adjacent to the existing area. Is that platted access easement going to remain on these new lots? How are you going to restrict people from using that? Or can you? It could, but the developers, it's their plan to screen it off and end their deed restrictions if they want to require that they only have garage or driveway access off the new streets. That's just something they do in their bylaws. Deeds restrictions. Technically, these lots would be the same as what was recorded before where they front on a public street but they have rear access to the garages. But if I'm buying one of those lots, why would I want to have an access easement on the rear of my lot that I am probably paying to maintain and I don't have access to it? I don't know. It's a client's choice. It's just what they're building. Hello. Sorry for being late. I had planning commission in my mind. I was like that the whole morning and this afternoon. Are you good with my streets on this plan? Yeah. Right on the spot. There was questions earlier about all the different sections. We've got several sections on here that show the recorded streets that feed into it. Other than the length, we're meeting all the new ordinances. Thank you, applicant. Now do we have anyone that would like to speak from the community? We've been giving people the opportunity to do so. Okay. That's a no. Then we're going to bring it back to our committee. All right. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN-MJ-SUB 24-8 Patchen Wilkes Unit 1 Phase 2 with the 13 attached conditions. Second. Let's vote, please. All in favor, raise your hand. All in favor. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on down. We're on page 2 now. PLN-MJ-SUB 24-9 for the Patchen Wilkes. Also the same subdivision, but this is Unit 2. Has the same address because it's a remnant address from where the farm originally existed. So this plan is a development plan or a preliminary subdivision plan for the commercial area of this subdivision that is zoned B1 as well as some area around that that's still zoned R3. So the preliminary subdivision plan depicts residential to the left of the collector street and then commercial to the right with outlots that face onto this Winchester Road and then a larger B1 lot that is actually lot 7, which is split zone. So there's a zone line that crosses the rear of this lot in a triangular fashion and whereas the lot line comes parallel to Winchester Road and then another lot to the north of that that's zoned for residential development as well. So the street network includes this new proposed collector roadway as well as the extension of an existing collector roadway from the east. So this is Thunderstick I think it's Drive that currently stubs into the property and then this new road, I forget the name. Thank you. I can't remember new stuff. Charleston Drive. So Charleston Drive does exist in the adjacent Eastland Parkway neighborhood. So eventually this roadway is intended to connect further to the north into Eastland towards Eastland Parkway. The collector street though does intersect with Winchester Road directly across from the existing entrance to Frederick Douglass High School. So there's already a traffic signal there and then obviously they don't have as many lanes, three lanes from the school side whereas the proposal on the north side is much wider to accommodate both commercial and residential traffic. The staff when reviewing this identified just the main sign offs for number one through nine on your staff recommendation or the technical committee recommendation on page two and then four things to either document or discuss. So there are conditional zoning restrictions associated with the business area of this plan and those are not noted on this preliminary subdivision plan at all and they do restrict the use of the B1 area. In fact they require a mixed use development in the B1 area. Both multi-story buildings as well as residential to be incorporated into the B1 area. So we definitely need those conditional zoning restrictions printed on this plan and then we wanted to discuss or have the applicant sort of explain what their intention was in terms of complying with the conditional zoning restrictions because there doesn't really appear to be anything on this plan to denote how that might occur and then discuss the layout changes from the previous plan and a need for a final development plan which the planning commission knows but for the audience preliminary subdivision plans really just show a lotting pattern and they don't show where our buildings or parking lots would be shown or setbacks for buildings and so it is I think important for the commission to understand how the land use might be changing on this particular plan and indicate for the public just what density are we proposing on the west side of this new extended collector, what kind of commercial development is proposed and then again more potentially multi-family residential in this section and just really what that plan is for the property. And then lastly to discuss the proposed split zone lot generally there's no prohibition on split zone lots but it is interesting in terms of the angle of the zone how that might be accommodated on what is primarily then a commercial area and then are we proposing multi-family adjacent or single family, just what's the proposal there and whether it needs to be a split zone lot or if it would be more appropriate to be the lot line to follow the zone. Those are the items that the staff wanted to bring forward to the commission members and the subdivision committee members and at this point the tech committee recommended postponement of this particular plan and yeah, happy to answer any questions and I'm sure the applicant can also answer questions. Do we have any questions for Ms. Wade before we hear from the applicant? I have questions for the applicant about how they're going to meet article 19 with the mapped floodplain and the crossing and making sure they're protecting the required buffers. So on the previous plan maybe give a little bit more information about that Cheryl mentioned a large floodplain and having just four or five lots backing up to that but on this particular plan at the north side here is where that floodplain continues but it also deviates and comes down kind of the side of our preliminary subdivision plan here which generally along the property line is probably in a residential area again, we prefer that area not include the floodplain but up here where Thunder Stick is being continued is where I believe the division of engineering is most concerned about how is the applicant proposing to cross that and build this collector street across the floodplain? Are they proposing to do changes with FEMA? Are they bridging it completely? Just what's the plan there to address the article 19 requirements and obviously as this road Charleston Drive continues it will need to cross the floodplain to get to the rear portion of their farm and that's true on the other preliminary subdivision plan as well they'll have to bridge it to get to that because there's really no other access except from Eastland Parkway to the back part of the farm. Thank you applicant. Well we'll start off by saying yes we will be postponing this one as well. Along with these development plans that I forgot about from 04 had a 30 day notice to the Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association so that went out yesterday so any hearing will be pushed back to December. So I will be adding the conditional zoning restrictions and those earlier development plan notes they were pretty specific back then it's quite interesting to read those. Layout changes, so for 20 years we've had this zone change land sitting here and nothing's happened so now with the changing of the guard of the horse farm and pretty much the removal of the horse farm activity they want to come forward with the infrastructure. They need some streets, show the connectivity through construction plans they'll go through the storm sewer and then they'll have what we're showing as proposed lots that they can start to market. The split zone is simply because we had a nice rectangle back there of R3. We could change the property line to follow the zone line if it matters but with the bigger piece also having residential requirements so this is the big piece out front here, all this B1 that does have residential requirements didn't really think that the split zone would affect its use and then that left us with this one back here which they are thinking will be a multifamily nice rectangle, something we can eventually lay out on. All the lots would have to come back to you for a final development plan before anything's built. They just need to get some roads started, let everyone see what the properties will be, where the roads access points will be. So we were lining up with the light out front here. This long piece over here is zoned R3. We haven't even done any layouts for this piece yet. I know that by others this side right over here around the pond had a whole bunch of townhomes in R3. This could be more of the same, it could be single family. Any residential user that wants to come in there. One of the questions Tracy asked this is right across from a high school. Thoughts about what kind of commercial development they're going to be doing in there? Is it still too preliminary? We're just trying to show some out lots. We've got a big space and we've got little lots. Yes sir. I know you're aware. It's been traffic's opinion that the main intersection with Charleston and Thunderstick would be suitable for a roundabout. We've had the discussion. I think he said he's discussed with the owner. That's our opinion and our position at this point that that would be a good location. And the street you saw before at Patchen Wilkes Drive it is planned to come around the backside and it would tie in. At some point here we're looking at trying to get Patchen Wilkes Drive, Thunderstick, Charleston, everything into that roundabout. So this extra month for the notification will help us get there. Thank you. Do we have anybody from the community that would like to speak? Does not look like it. Alright. Okay. Come on up please. Can you come to the front please? Come to the podium. So I'm not. Just my opinion or question in terms of your process from a safety perspective. We live in the townhomes that you pointed out. We've been there seven years so we've seen lots of activity particularly with the new high school. So if there's going to be what I call edible things on those parcels in the front, I envision high school students crossing at that intersection. So just a question around who's going to address safety issues, speed limits, is there going to be a walking, is there going to be some mechanism to make sure that we don't have people injured? So our division of traffic engineering would work with the state because Winchester Road is a state highway to make any improvements that the planning commission might seem deemed necessary for that purpose. Or even adjusting the signals for crossing. Because as you say, I think we know the students will cross Winchester Road if there's something across the road for them to get to. As far as I know, there's not a sidewalk in front of the high school? No, there's not. And then the last comment, and I actually want to defer to some of my neighbors to speak up as well. We have lots of questions about whether or not they're going to be able to access our private street. It's very narrow. There's parking on one side of it. Landscape shielding perhaps with light pollution from those lots, etc. When they do submit their final development plans, they'll have to submit a lighting plan as well. And there's restrictions on the height of our light as well as the intensity of the light now that we've just adopted within the last six months. So hopefully that will address it. But landscaping can help as well. Can you get the microphone, Rory, please? Thank you. I like yelling hello. So their townhouse development, all access is back towards Patch and Wilkes Drive. There is Barry's house? Yes. So Barry, farm manager, has a house here. And their private access ends this way. There's an easement across here for the extension of that. I don't know what the plans are. Until someone has a use for this R3 zone, I'm sure there's a lot of people, fire in the city that would like you to have another way out. But when we come back with a development plan for this, that'll be the time that your access continuance will be resolved. We just won't know at this time. Yes. Rory, do you have a plan for your floodplain crossing? There probably will be, I would have to have Tom here, previously there was stormwater study on the property. I believe all the first piece we saw, the residential was part of that and handled. The crossings were shown at that time, and there was an approved stormwater study. As we go forward with this, once we get some development on the ground, we'd probably have to update that. It was way back when Parker was doing it, so it's 20 years ago. Do we have any more questions for the applicant? From the audience. If someone from the audience would like to make a comment, please come to the podium. Thank you. Good morning. My question is, my name is Ralph Goetz, I live in the Patchen Lake townhouse community. And in conjunction with what Jenny was saying about the safety of the students coming across the highway, I can tell you personally, we've been trying to get the state to look at the intersection just down at Winchester and Patchen Wilks, even this morning coming through it. There's water all through there. There's drainage issues there. The handicapped facility, in my opinion, is very limited. And we do have students currently from those single family homes that have to walk across Winchester every morning. And just to give you a reference, right up the road there at Fortune Drive, there's been two or three fatalities with pedestrians there. So I think if the state hasn't done anything down at the lower portion in the last seven years, what are they going to do at the upper end? Thank you. The state is currently doing, on all the arterials, basically walking the entirety of it. They've done Winchester, basically every arterial. I know Newtown Pike was going to be today. But effectively, it's using HSIP, which is Highway Safety Improvement Project Funding, identifying projects to be funded, and specifically for safety reasons. So I'm not sure what they'll, they have HDR as the engineering consultant, and they're going to be issuing their recommendations at the end of it. So it's been the last probably four months, every other Thursday, they've been meeting and working towards that. So I expect something in the next few months as far as their recommendations through here. Thank you. Applicant, would you like to respond to any of these? No, I'm good. Okay, thank you very much. We'll bring it back to our group here. You ready for a motion? I'm very surprised that Warren Rosenthal and Barry didn't have a plan for all this. They had a plan for all the other. I recommend postponement of PLN MJSUB 24-9 units to Winchester Road. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. And we'll vote now. Everyone in favor of the motion? Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to PLN MJDP 24-77, the Givens Property Outlot 1. Thank you. Okay, we're out here at the corner of Citation Boulevard, Georgetown Road. We have Remington here. We've seen a lot going on here over the last few months. This is the Publix down here. What we're doing is we're going to look at this corner lot here. Like I said, you can see there's been several lots already completed, but we're going to work on this lot. And on the corner here, they're proposing a commercial convenience store with gas pumps. So with that, the first 11 conditions are our typical sign-offs. Then we had several cleanup conditions from updating the site statistics box, remove signage off a plan face. We don't like to see the signs. That's usually taken care of through building inspection, denote location on facility map, access for construction vehicles, addition of information for Outlot 5. We just had another development plan signed, so we need to make sure that we update all the information. Addition of Note 26, which talks about a gas line that's located off-site. Addition of zoning boundaries and zoning category labels. Addition of street cross-sections. Denote boundary changes on Outlot 6 and 7. Received a consolidation plot for these lots over here. There was a slight boundary change, so we want to make sure that we get that moved so that for future development plans we have the correct property boundaries. Compliance with Articles 16, 18, 20, 26. That's parking, landscaping, open space, and tree inventory. Discuss conflict between dumpster and sanitary sewer easement. We're showing a sanitary sewer easement that's running up this direction here, and they're proposing their dumpsters, which are just encroaching into the sanitary sewer easement. There's always question about putting things into our easements because we don't want to create problems with our lines, and that's a conflict, so they'll either have to move them or ask for an encroachment. And then discuss recommendations of the Royal Springs Aquifer Committee. I know that they went to the committee. Tracy's got the information on that one. So I think you've heard before that sometimes our applicants go to the committee after the Planning Commission hears it, so we're trying to get that to occur before the Commission hears the item. So the applicant did go to the committee this last month, and I will note I've only been to two or three committees since Tom typically attended and since his retirement. So it has been interesting to hear the conversations for sure. But this property is located within the Royal Springs Aquifer, and the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee is charged with reviewing development plans and making recommendations to the Planning Commission, which then ultimately your decision gets filtered into infrastructure plans and ultimate development plans. For any property within the Royal Springs Aquifer, they do not recommend approving any gas stations because of the underground tanks and the possibility that those tanks will leak into their drinking water. So consistent with that, that they've made those recommendations for years, they recommended that this use not be allowed here. My understanding is we have approved gas stations in the Royal Springs Aquifer, and we the Planning Commission, I guess, works with their approval then filters to engineering and they do their best to ensure that all of the proper protections are in place for the tanks. We wanted to recommend postponement so that you all were aware of those recommendations before you take any action. I will open it and ask if there's any other comments or questions. I just want to confirm that in my experience, we have with the new technology that's available to protect the storage tanks, I'm aware of a couple instances where we have approved gas tanks. And the approval would be through the Planning Commission and then the regulation and the design would be handled. We would then defer it to engineering, correct? And the applicant. Thank you. Do we have any questions? Yeah, let me follow up on that. And then the tanks would be allowed to be put underground or would they be allowed to be on top? They would be underground. I don't think federal regulations allow them to be above ground. There is some at the interstate on Ironworks Pike. It's on top of the ground for that very reason. So whether temporary or whether waiting on a wait, that's all been changed. There are some on top of the ground with a container underneath them. So if they get a leak, they know it. And I think Brad is here on behalf of the applicant to explain what they do as a business to protect the tanks from leaking. Obviously, they don't want to lose any of the product they're selling. But again, the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee is just, I would say adamant is the right word, that there not be tanks because they just don't trust the technology. They say it still leaks. I have to believe what they're saying. They deal with it every day. My recollection is we went through this with the Kroger store that has the gas station affiliated with it. And one of the things we asked was past history of the applicant in other locations and that kind of stuff. Good morning. My name is Brad Boaz with CMW. Just to stay on that point, I provided two handouts. One is kind of their corporate emergency management procedures. And it covers everything from robberies to active shooters, including leaks. So that's kind of a little bit boilerplate. But the more specific one is the one that says Exhibit D, which is what they provide for every store specifically. And it gets into the technology that they have for monitoring leaks, monitoring infiltration, the alarms that go off, just to show that any leak that happens is detectable according to their technology. And so if you go to the third page, it goes through all the different alarms that's there, all the different things it monitors. And so they are extremely committed to ensuring that any way possible, whatever technology is available, that they will do it to ensure that leaking does not happen. And if it does, it's detected immediately. Also, the only thing that's not on here is any surface leaks. They would put in an oil-water separator for anything. And that's just for a car or for anybody that leaks onto the pavement. And so they would want to do that before it discharges into the open basin just to the west of the site. And so, yeah, understanding that the Royal Springs Aquifer just blankets as no gas station, similar to what the Shell at Newtown Pike and then the CRO over at Newtown Pike as well, we would take every effort possible within reason to try to protect the aquifer. And then, I guess I'll stop there and ask, is there any additional questions as you look through their standards? And again, this is one for a job they did in Indiana, and they will make it site-specific to Lexington once they understand exactly what all engineering and the planning commission wants to see out of this company. And so HUCS is kind of new to the market. They've got a store on Polo Club near the Costco, and they're looking at additional opportunities to come into the market. But they obviously see, with all the growth here at Citation, a great opportunity for them to establish themselves. And then while you're looking, the issue of the dumpster, there are other locations I attempted to get ahold of Mr. Burton this week and was unsuccessful, but yes, we can locate the dumpster outside of the easement to ensure that we don't need to ask for an encroachment nor move the easement. So we will get that addressed and resolve that issue with the site plan changes. So some of the other site plan changes, they'll be ready for next week, right? Yes. So David and I talked about reducing the width of the driveway from 50 foot to 36 foot, that's no issue. In addition to, you see that kind of angled drive coming in off Remington Drive, we're going to straighten that up a little bit as well to make it a more traditional approach that David asked us to do, which is again, no problem at all. Alright, do we have any questions for the applicant? No questions for the applicant, thank you very much. And do we have anyone from the community that would like to speak? It does not look like there is. Thank you, we'll bring that back to the committee. Well, we wanted to discuss the Royal Springs issue with you and really get your sense for that before moving forward with other That's my understanding. That's what I heard and what we have done in the past. Yes, we can review their information before we sign off on anything. Is Royal Springs the major outstanding question right now with the changes that Mr. Filler tried to make? And I will note that land use, people in this area still need gas. So we, I mean, it is a recommendation from them to not have gas stations, but if that was applied uniformly over the entire Royal Springs aquifer it would seriously impact our community and how we function, so I just want to keep that. The applicant, in terms of this particular company's track record, because they have other locations, can you talk a little bit about what their track record is? I'm not aware of any issues, but I can certainly ask them to develop or provide information to you all to review, or to engineering, if they have a red flag, we can certainly address it, but unfortunately, Ms. Worth, no, I don't have information on their track record. So if I'm understanding the sequence of events, we could go ahead and move this forward and you all have a chance to sign off after that, is that what we're saying? I'd say for consistency's sake with what we've done elsewhere out in this area, we probably ought to move this forward if everybody else is, I'm ready to move for approval. Are you okay with that? Okay, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2477 Givens Property Outlot 1 with the attached, we still discuss the Royal Springs 24? So I would suggest number 23, changing that to resolve conflict between the dumpster and the sewer easement, and then on 24, they're going to need to denote any recommendations for the Royal Springs aquifer wellhead, we always put the wrong name on there, wellhead protection committee. Okay, with the 24 conditions, changing number 23 to resolve and changing number 24 to denote. We have a motion of approval with a second, we will all vote on that right now. Approved, thank you very much. Thank you Ms. Galt, that brings us to PLNMJDP 24-78 Fritz Farm, Track C. Okay, we're moving to the south side of Lexington this is Nicholasville Road and Man o' War Boulevard, this is our Fritz Farm, our mixed use project over here off of Habersham and Man o' War there's Harrison, which is a road that leads back from Habersham into Fritz Farm, this piece of property has been vacant and now they've come in proposing a hotel and a restaurant I understand it's Margarita Hotel and Land Shark restaurant on this property here, they're going to have an area here to have conventions and that sort of thing, so they came in and brought us in a revised plan, so you'll have revised conditions on this one they were able to do some clean up, so the first 11 conditions are typical sign offs, we just want to make sure that we add the record plant information for this property there's a lot of information on the property, they gave us the information record plant information for adjacent property we want a documentation of lighting plan per article 30 as Tracy has mentioned, we have revised that and we are now asking for documentation to show how they're going to light their property, and then documentation of elevations of structures to depict building features for article 28.6 of the zoning ordinance being as a mixed use project, they are to present us with documentation of the elevations of how this is going to fit in with the rest of the project with that I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions do we have any additional questions or comments? we do not, applicant hey, good morning everyone I'm Adam Bender with HDR we're working on the lighting plan and the elevations we'll get those to you soon I think we're pretty excited about this one Fritz Farm has been developing for a while, it's getting close to being complete this is a pretty big, just empty lot, it'll be nice to see something there see some activity does anyone have any questions? do we have any questions for the applicant? we do not, thank you applicant, we'll bring it back to the committee for comments or a motion Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2478 Fritz Farm Track C with revised 14 conditions second we have a motion and a second, let's vote please that motion passes, thank you this leads us to Mr. Crum with PLN MJDP 24-79 we have a revised recommendation from the staff yes, you should have, the applicant has provided an updated plan staff reviewed that and has provided a revised list of conditions this will take us back downtown the subject properties consist of a number of properties located generally between Lexington Maxwell and Stone this is located within the downtown area, you'll recall this was a zone change not too long ago, the intent behind that was to take what was previously single family houses, demolishing those consolidating the property into one single unified development and using that in order to develop a multifamily residential development, primarily oriented towards students what you're seeing today is showing the consolidation of those lots the demolition of those buildings and the construction of a single unified structure what you're seeing here is unit-wise in line with what was shown at that preliminary development plan with the zone change approximately 278 units, which is 656 beds the structure itself, 75 feet in height with step-downs provided closer to Lexington during the conversation on the zone change, there was a lot of discussion on the impact on the surrounding areas maintaining the streetscape and the flow along Maxwell activation of the streetscape and the like this plan is showing a couple additional changes the site access previously on the original preliminary development plan showed access onto Lexington as well as to the rear with Hagerman the access to the site has now been consolidated into a single point this site here is serving all of the vehicular traffic on the site everything else is just pedestrian going through our conditions here, we've got our standard sign-offs and our standard conditions but as far as corrections that need to be made, they still need to correct the open space total they're showing three open space areas that will be utilized by the development the open space totals of these are still not matching the site statistics there as this is subject to our new lighting ordinance so they'll need to provide that information on spillover lighting on site to make sure we're in compliance with that as far as the conditional zoning, there was a number of uses that were excluded at the time of the zone change, it's just a formatting requirement all of the requirements are being shown, they're just formatted slightly differently it is cleaning up that condition as well as far as discussion areas, original plan showed a utility and dumpster area in this parcel to the north, that is now being shown as retaining the existing house that is there and is not proposed to be demolished at this time so this area had served the utility, mechanical, dumpster locations previously, and so we were asking the applicant to clarify how that functions on the site, my understanding, based on the technical comments, was that it would be located internally and then brought to this access point for private pickup as far as the changes to the site access as we noted earlier, the applicant had provided a traffic impact study at the time of the zone change, the site access has now been changed so the distribution of traffic is now concentrated on Stone Avenue as Hagerman going further north is a one-way, so all of the traffic for the 160-something parking spaces accommodated in the parking structure underneath the building are going to be accessing through Stone so the implications of that as far as the numbers that you all as the Planning Commission looked at at the zone change, we wanted to discuss and modify that. Street trees and landscaping along Maxwell Street the previous iteration of the plan and the renderings showed landscaping, we noted at a technical committee that it is sometimes preferable to leave some of those details off of the plan that way when they install it, they have flexibility with the locations and some of that, but we wanted to make sure that that landscaping was still being provided and is substantially similar as to what was promised with the initial plan. With respect to changes in how the site is developing and flowing, one of the things that was added during the zone change process that helped bolster the applicant's zone change justification, in our opinion, was the inclusion of dedicated townhome units along Stone Avenue with their separate entrances. The previous plan denoted seven, each with their own dedicated entrance, so trying to recreate that pattern and feel and activation along Stone Avenue. As of right now, the applicant is no longer proposing to do those townhome units, they are just going to be incorporated into the rest of the structure and they are showing three entrances instead of the seven or so that are spaced out. In conversations with the applicant, I think they have some utility considerations there that they say are limiting their ability to activate that, but we wanted to put that up as a discussion item because that feel and that pattern in activating the streetscape was extremely important at the time of the zone change. With respect, this didn't come to light during the zone change process, but there is a significant tree located at the corner of the property here just outside of the project boundary area. We wanted to make sure with the required fencing and construction, with it being located just off the property line but still within an area that could be impacted, we wanted to make sure that that was on the radar as far as taking any necessary precautions with the construction or the fencing or the other aspects to make sure that that is retained. And then the discussion around the timing of this development. The applicant is showing Hagerman Court, which currently cuts through the site and exits onto Maxwell. That is a public road, so they are going to need to construct this addition here, have this closed by the Urban County Council, rededicated to them, and then consolidated along with the rest of the parcels that make up the development. This creates a lot of complications with the timing, the phasing, and how that needs to be accomplished. Once again, closing a roadway is by no means a streamlined, straightforward process. We wanted to have that as a discussion as well. And then finally, discussing the multi-family design standards. So this is a new condition that was brought forth after the technical committee. So here we have the rendering that was, so the applicant provided two renderings at the time of the original zone change and then have subsequently updated. So this is the view from Maxwell Street that was originally provided. This is the applicant's updated proposal. So there seemed to be some disconnect between things like window spacing, the amount of windows, changing materials from going back, kind of a larger incorporation of brick, a larger incorporation of windows, the inclusion of some landscaping elements that seemed to sort of have been left off in this iteration. So once again, this is, you're looking for sort of substantial compliance. So meeting the intent, meeting the kind of idea that the neighborhood and the planning commission, when they looked at this previously, how that was being evaluated. Similarly, this was the view from Stone. So once again, you see a kind of change in spacing, rhythm, materials, et cetera. Some of the larger core concepts are still there, but staff did note that some of these things appeared to have been changed and wanted to kind of bring that to the planning commission's attention as a discussion item as this is something that, once again, was kind of instrumental in getting the support of planning staff and getting this through at the preliminary phase. And so with that, that is the last of staff's kind of conditions, but wanted to bring those to you all's attention. Do we have any questions for Mr. Crum? Thank you. Once again, the reason for the postponement recommendation is for, to limit these 22, um, 23 questions, correct? Yep, looks like it. All right, applicant? Good morning. Before I turn it over to Matt to talk about the technical things, I just want to provide a little color, especially for Commissioner Penn, because you weren't here when we zoned this. But you've seen this property before, if it's jogging your memory. Right before COVID, it was February of 20, I presented this. It was a different development, a lot more dense, I think 8 or 10 stories, if you'll recommend, and it was the classic, how do you say, 10 pounds of flour in a 5 pound sack type thing. And there really wasn't any adaptability, any willingness to give on any of that by the developer at that time. And so that project was disapproved, the zone change was disapproved. Well, enter the new developer and a whole new process and this, in my mind, the process that led to the approval of this zone change worked exactly like it's supposed to. There was a whole lot of give and take. We started with a building that looked entirely different than this, and it wasn't met with approval by the neighbors, and it wasn't met with approval by your commission. And that led to what we have here. And Daniel's exactly right, on the final development plan, we have a note that we're to be substantially compliant with the renderings that are on file. And I'll tell you we won't be, we're going to exceed that. And here is some of the changes. The major one is when Gilbane, which is one of the premier builders of this type of a project, that's going to build this project, and Michael Abt is here, and Yao Yu, our architect, for Gilbane, we got into the design, Yao Yu is taking a 20-foot easement that runs down not only Maxwell, but Stone. So that caused the building to pinch on Maxwell. It comes in 10 on Maxwell, and it comes in 10 on Stone, 10 feet. So that's why the units that face Stone had to be changed. There's less of them now, is what you'll see. And so I thought it was five doorways, seven, whatever. Right now there's three entrances off the street, and that's exactly right. Those were shown as a means of activating the street level. So we have three shown, and we'll sit down with staff and work this out. We think we can go ahead and do two more because there's a community room here, and there's a study room on the other side. So we still keep the same look and feel, maybe with two less doors, but that wasn't done from the standpoint of, oh, we want to build a cheaper building. It was necessitated by what's happening with the easement there. The tree, just learned that it didn't survive the wind this past weekend, apparently, and the arborist has already been out there, and it's been taken down. Daniel probably didn't know about that. I didn't either, but that's the case. This project sits right in the middle of our city. No one is more acutely aware than I am of how far we came from the very first time it went on the board to when it was finally approved. I know that my client, the applicant, is intent and will and has a history of delivering first rate projects, and this one's going to be no different. There's some things that have to be worked through as far as the access and so forth and road closures, and I'll let Matt speak to that, but all that's happening in real time, but I just wanted to make sure you all understood, especially you, Commissioner Penn, how this got from where it was to where it is now, because it's come a long, long way, and it's going to be a great project. I'll shut up at this point. Matt, you want to hit the technical stuff? Okay. The first item on your discussion items was the location of the dumpster. Originally, we showed this house being removed. We had a mechanical yard and a dumpster and compactor over here. Since then, the owner has decided to move the compactor into the building. garage level, and it'll be accessed from the alley back here. So that's going to take care of all the solid waste. Matt, let me jump in real quick and explain why that happened. Because you all, Ms. Wirth and Mr. Nichol, you all saw this plan, and Mr. Penn, the Pei fraternity house, is it 235 Maxwell? It was down on the corner. They were included in the zone change. When it came down to it, they kind of decided they didn't want to be included. We had two choices. We'd made promises about what kind of building we're going to build here. We just couldn't carve out that property and then try to bring it back to you. So the developer had to make a huge concession and essentially, and this is a public record, contracted to give them 245 Stone Avenue. So that's their property now. Whatever they're going to use it for or try to use it for, they'll have to go through that process. We won't be involved in that. But in order to keep our promises, we made a decision to do that. So I just want to make sure you understand why things changed at that location. Okay. Number 18, it's asking about the side access and the traffic impact study. So we have the only access to the parking structure is here off the alley. Originally, when we filed the zone change, we had an entrance here and then we had two entrances onto the alley. But the owner has worked through the garage and they came to the conclusion they only needed one entrance. There's only roughly 160 parking spaces, plus or minus. So based on that, we revised the traffic study. We have submitted that to engineering now. You know we don't do plus or minus. Well, I don't know the exact number off the top of my head. So I'm just saying I don't. Yeah, I'm only 25 years old, give or take. I'll go with that. But anyway, the traffic study looked at 160 plus or minus cars. No, it was specific on how many cars are in the garage. And it said there was no impact to the surrounding. So we have sent that to traffic engineering. I doubt you've had time to review it, but we did send it to them. And I think we send it to you guys. Okay. Yeah. So it shows no impact. And even though there is a lot of students housing in this, there's only 150 plus or minus parking spaces. And only those can impact the traffic. Let's see. The 40 inch black walnut that John said was right here. And yesterday I went out to the site with the urban forester. And sure enough, the tree fell down and somehow missed all the houses. So he told me, he goes, I figured that tree would go down because he'd been out there before. And the roots had pulled up on one side, I guess, from the hurricane a month ago. And it finally came down. So there was one other small tree that was a significant tree right here. We discussed that with him. And KU is putting an electric underground line down this road. And he was okay with that being removed. Street trees and landscaping along Maxwell Street. So we will, all the existing trees that are here, I don't know if y'all have been down there, they're in pretty sad shape. They'll all be removed. And new trees will be put in the utility strip along Maxwell and Stone Road and Lexington as well. Okay. The timing of the closure. So we met with engineering and we discussed several options on this. So what I think we've all agreed to is we're going to do two phases on this project. The first phase is we're going to build this right here, get that open before this gets removed. Simultaneously, while we're doing that, we're going to apply for a land disturbance permit and a demo permit so we can start taking down the houses. So we'll build this road, start taking down the houses, start working on getting utilities relocated as needed. And then during that time, we're going to go apply to go to the council. And as soon as this is completed and accepted by engineering, we'll go in front of the council and ask for this to be released. Also, during this time, we're going to be consolidating all these into on this side of the alley, alley being right here. This will be one lot. This will be a lot so that we can go ahead and pull permits. We also want to be able to do on this side the foundations and on this side. So we won't be applying for a building permit, but we will be applying for a foundation permit. And there's a lot of work that we can do before that gets dedicated or what's the opposite of dedicated? Unreleased. There we go. Before that gets released. So once that gets released, then we'll automatically go into phase two, which is just completing the rest of the project. Mr. Carter, can you clarify about the Hagerman Court? That will be a public street? Okay. Hagerman will be, it'll remain public. We're going to keep Hagerman up to about right here. And then from this part here, it'll be a private access easement, but it will be open to the public. It will be built to public standards. And we'll have a sidewalk section that has, I mean, we'll have a street section that has sidewalks on both sides. Does that give you? Yes. Can you explain why? Okay. There's only one reason we need it to be private. And if we have to do detention, we're going to do underground detention, and we can't do it in the right away, but we can do it in a private easement. And this will be on this property, and we would do it in this area underground. We are confident that we don't have to do detention. We have done a study on this. We're actually less impervious, hard to believe, but we are than it currently is today. So that's why we want it to be private access. That requires a waiver. Okay. Because you have a public street, and you're dedicating a new public street, which is part of a subdivision, and you can't just terminate it into an access easement without a waiver of the subregs. Normally, we would have a termination of a roadway, right? Yeah. If we can all agree, I mean, engineering that we don't need the detention, then we'll make it public. So the runoff from the structure will feed into the existing storm sewer lines on Maxwell, or do you know? On all sides. Well, there's storm drainage here, and then there's storm drainage around Maxwell. I don't believe there's any here, so we'll take it to these two sides. Yeah. Matt, so when are you going to provide the study to determine if that's going to be called an access easement or remain a public street? Because it would need to be spelled out on this plan, probably. We'll provide it. We've done it. We'll go ahead and provide it to you. Yeah. I mean, we were thinking we would provide it when we submitted our construction documents, but we can go ahead and get you that. I think that would help with the planning process of whether a waiver is required or not. Yeah. And I'm not sure if y'all are. The waiver is just for termination of a public street. It has to end in a cul-de-sac. I'm not sure which of you guys this question goes to, but Ms. Wade mentioned changes in the materials on the surface, the types of windows, not just the number of doors, but in terms of substantial compliance with the rendering. And I'd have to go back and see them side by side. I can't flip from one to the other. But my recollection is there were also balconies on the first rendering that had a more green. Am I right about that? Yeah, we have. Absolutely. We have the architect here and the owner. So if y'all want to come up and kind of address some of these architectural features. Hi, my name is Yao Yu from Humphreys and Partners Architects. So I'm the architect for this project. And let's see if we can turn it. So here you can see, again, these two joints that when we were done, the hand renderings, they are character animations and perspectives. So they were done without a real plan that's underneath it. So we were tasked into, once we got the project, we were tasked to really make it happen, design units into it, where the windows need to be located, where the bathrooms are, all that. But we are very aware of the articulation and the forms that it presented. So when we were designing it, we were doing our best to try to present to you the same look that they have. On this one, we do see a little bit of challenge that you can see a lot of the windows, especially for that corner. These are really storefront windows going from, I would say, floor to ceiling. And again, we are doing student housing. So lots of these are for dorms and student sleeps in it. And those windows are problematic for privacy purpose. And so now, going back to what we have designed, these windows are actually six-foot windows. Remember, the room for these students are normally nine-foot wide by about 11-foot deep. And these windows are six-by-six windows. So they are very large and provide sufficient lighting for them, but still give them some privacy. So that's the reason behind the windows. Now, for the balconies, again, the character... So some of these windows, again, since it was a character elevation, a 3D that was done by the concept architect, he really didn't put any thought on where these balconies are. And also, you can see the balcony are really on the windows. It's not an accessible balcony. So when we did it, we really located these balconies on living rooms where you can come out and just really slide the door open. You can enjoy the fresh air. But we do have some of these. Hi, everyone. Mike Gap with Gilbane Development Company, developer on the project. They are Juliet balconies, so they're not full balconies. But we do have a sliding door so they can stand out and overlook it. But the balconies were always shown on the original plan. We tried to mimic those on our plan as well. And how about the... You mentioned reduction in brick from the original. So the reason for that, we really had three reasons. I would say the first thing is so we know the audience is really the students. And we felt like they want something more contemporary. And the panel look compared to brick is a better product for our purpose that it's a more contemporary look. The other thing really is that National Masonry Association said, if it is you have a wood construction, they recommend the brick not going over three stories. The reason being that the brick is a solid material and the wood moves. And when you go over the height, it creates a problem long term because there may crack later on or something. So in this project, I mean, the first two floors are steel and concrete. But beyond that, it's all wood. So that's another reason we didn't do that. The third reason really is that on the first level, first two levels, pedestrians will walk and they'll feel the material. But beyond that, taller on that, it normally fades away. And we also have a step back. So we want to create a contrast on materials. So that's the reason. I'd like to address the audience for this. Students will be living there, but this is going surrounded by historic neighborhood. And the look for them, I think, will not be the same than perhaps what you're describing for students. And I think we have an architect in the other committee this afternoon. And I wish he were in the room here because I'm not an architect. But I personally think we've lost something in the transition from the original design to this that would make the original design more compatible with the neighborhood this is going into. We are certainly more than willing to sit down with staff, with the committee, and go over that. We'd like to make it the best project we can make it, not just for the developer, but for the community. We could certainly add more masonry up on the verticals. But even the original rendering had a difference in material types as well. We went with less masonry for the reasons that Yao provided. And we have experience doing student housing, this type of project, podium-level construction, where we're aware that over time, and it's a short period of time, because wood moves differently, that the masonry will start cracking. So we tried. Gilbane's been around for over 150 years. We've done over 25,000 beds. And what we have found over time, and it's a short period of time, 15 years since we've been our first student housing project, which was all masonry, we're finding the effects of the cracking now as opposed to doing cementitious material. And it thrives for a much longer period of time. And it's a quality building. That's all we want to do. So certainly willing to sit down with staff and the committee and come up with a perfect solution for all of us. We tried to stay substantially compliant with the renderings that were provided. The first level is activated. The entrance of the building is the same. It's all storefront there. The corner at stone, which way do I go? It's this one. So the double, you know, the look on stone, the two-story level for the units there with the stoops, the entrances coming in, we tried to be as compatible with that as well. The first floor, oh, that's not what I wanted. The top button, that's what I pressed. Okay. Well, based on what I said, we created a community room here at the corner. The original plan was probably units there. The plan wasn't submitted, so there wasn't any design intended inside the box, if you will. But I wanted to provide that activation on the first floor. We've created a community room, a group study room, that type of thing on the corner to keep that activation on the lower levels. There is a unit above that. And then going down stone, these units here have direct entrances from Stone Avenue into their unit from the outside. And that's what you wanted. The reason why there's three as opposed to seven that was shown on the original plan is when we met with the utility company, Kentucky Utilities, we have to take electric underground down stone, down Hagerman, to refeed those homes that were taken out where the power is being fed from the existing Hagerman Court. So our units that were deep and not as wide became not as deep and longer. So we have three units there. I'm certainly willing to put another set of stairs as, yeah, on the front at the community room and also one at the other end of the building where the study room is and the stairwell. So I can certainly add at least two more stairs entering the building at that point. And that is a little bit more compliant. But we tried to stay substantially compliant with the renderings that you have seen. And I think we did a pretty good job. The window layouts are based on the units inside. The original rendering didn't have that opportunity. They just put windows in. So you certainly don't want a window in your bathroom, in your shower, that type of thing. So all these windows line up. And as Yao said, they're very large windows for these units. And we kept the balcony look similar to the original rendering as well. I think we stayed in very similar compliance with what you saw before. I think what we're seeing also is that the color change to white may be visually what is distracting. Yeah. I think that the... Certainly willing to change colors. Not that we're... I'm not saying that we're determining what color you need to paint your building. I'm just saying as looking at both the images, I think what we may be seeing is the color makes the non-masonry materials stand out more. And just an observation, we are not designing your project. Just an observation for the group. We just wanted to stay in compliance. The same colors that were kind of used, we just tried to stay within that same ballot. Yeah. The other thing really is that... So this is done by watercolor. And the other one that we have done is really computer 3D. So there's some difference on that also. Yeah. Once again, not designing your project, just making a comment. And we go through building development and plans get reviewed by staff. Again, when we put our building permit in, we'll certainly go through that. And again, certainly willing to sit down with the committee and... I think that's outside our purview, but I'm just saying that visually that could add to what we're reacting to. So we're not designing the project. Yeah. I mean, on this rendering, there were no materials called out in the original. This could be a panel-like system. It kind of reads a little bit as a texture of a masonry. Again, everything above the second floor, you have all masonry down on the pedestrian level. That's where you kind of see it when you're walking down the street and everything. Everything that's set back, it kind of loses your eye. So that's why... And again, on the maintenance issue, we don't like to do masonry above that. Certainly willing to provide more masonry up there if that's what the staff and committees want. More in tune with the neighborhood. Certainly willing to add some more on the vertical element. And we've worked with staff and come up with something that is more in tune with what the neighborhood is reflecting. And I just make one... I know this is your goal, your market student housing, but we don't know what Lexington will look like in 30 or 40 years. So I don't want to miss words. This is surrounded by an historic area. So it's something that'll fit not just student housing, but maybe for the next 200 years. It'd be nice to think of something that we could build that wouldn't necessarily have an exact purpose, knowing that you also have to build within the confines of your economics and your market. But I just... Yeah. So I think we all just reacted in a certain way between the two, thinking something's not quite right. I'm not an architect either, so I can't really articulate it, but I think you've heard it, so. Yeah. In terms of all the things we've talked about and the issues, the staff issues that were raised, are you all still suggesting postponement on this? Yes. I think there needs to be some changes to the plan that address some of these questions. Sometimes notes, other times actually graphically. I think there's no driveway to where the dumpster slash compactor is, so it's hard for the staff to know where that access will be. Yeah. So changes to the plan are necessary. Oh. We did provide a garage level layout. It's on a cell and it does show the compactor, the doors, the access, so. It's not on the development plan, though. I can't put... It's... You're accessing it from the alley, correct? Right. And then it's inside, but there's no actual... Is this right, Daniel? There's no drive noted gap in the landscaping along the alley. Well, Hagerman, it's a public street, so that has to be noted, that entrance. On that plan. Oh, my goodness. It will be accessed into the street area, but here, I'll give you back to your development plan. Okay. Are you ready for a motion? It is on the plan, so don't say it's not. Well, there's some more conversations to be had here. I know you all are anxious to move this forward and there's been a lot of work, but it sounds like we have a lot more work to do. And you'll remember, Commissioner Worth, when the zone change was approved, the last thing said was, we're going to have a rigorous development plan process. Here it is. So, I'm going to move for... Wait, excuse me. We have a question from Mrs. Adkins with engineering. I just wanted to clarify, we did meet with Matt and talk about the access and the relinquishing of the right-of-way and all the different stages, but he mentioned that foundation permits would be through engineering and they're not through engineering. So, we can talk about the LDP itself, but permitting of the structure goes through a different division. Thank you. Traffic? Yes, sir. I would discuss this a little bit. On Maxwell, I talked about bull belts. Yeah, so make sure it's on the development plan at some point. We got plenty of time, but I just want to make sure that, yeah. I jumped ahead of community comment. Okay, thank you, applicant. And now, anyone from the community would like to speak? Please come to the podium. All right, no one from the community. We can bring it back to our group here now. 21. We haven't heard anything from our staff. So, leave it for the time being, is what you're saying? Okay. Is that the only questionable change on the wording on the 23? Everything else? Okay. I'm going to move for postponement of PLNM JDP 2479, the Maxwell, with the revised 23 conditions. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Let's vote, please. Motion of postponement passes. Thank you, applicant. That moves us now to PLNM JDP 24-80, R3 Absher property, Lexington-Cut Stone. Good morning. We're going to be looking at the Arthur E. Absher property, the Lexington-Cut Stone & Marble Company, Midland Station. This is at the intersection. This is Winchester Road and Midland. It's currently vacant. The purpose of this is to depict the construction of two apartment buildings with a total of 258 dwelling units with the associated parking at ground level. There's a mix of interior and surface parking. Sorry, I blinked on the zoning. Yeah, B2A. The first 12 conditions are the standard conditions. We've had some revisions. They've added the cross sections on Midland. We're still looking for the cross sections for Winchester Road and Owens Avenue. They did provide the dimensions for all the structures on the plan. We're still recommending to use the updated site statistic box. They did label the blank areas of the floor plan, corrected the dimensions on the dumpster enclosure detail, and we're still looking for documentation of a lighting plan per Article 30. The applicants indicated that the railroad easements had been taken care of, and then we had discussed the 15-inch sanitary sewer main below Building A to be relocated. All right. Looks like we've got an approval recommendation with 16 conditions. Do we have any questions for staff at the moment? One thing is on note 16, it says the relocation will be to the approval of Division of Water Quality. That's engineering, because we review the construction plans. Okay. So we're going to change note 15 regarding 15-inch sanitary sewer main below Building A to be relocated based on approval of the Division of Engineering. Okay. We can make that adjustment. Thank you. All right. Applicant? Good morning. My name is Katie Beard. I'm with Prime AE Group, the engineering consultant for the project, and we have been working towards addressing all of the conditions. We have a lighting plan that has been uploaded, so we'll work with planning to go over that lighting plan and make sure that everything is there that they require to address that issue. The, let's see, number 13 and 14 regarding plans or changes to the plan itself will be revised by Tuesday when we submit corrections. And then number 16 regarding the sanitary sewer, there is an existing sewer under the footprint of Building A roughly in this area that'll be relocated around under the new drive and reconnected out near the street. So we'll work with engineering and send Vaughn those updates and make sure that the easements are clear on our development plan. So we're working diligently to get everything addressed. If there's any other questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. Do we have any more questions for the applicant? I did have just one question. I think it came up in the zone change about activation of the parking garage. So it may be necessary to provide those elevations or renderings again just to document that. Yeah. It hasn't changed since that time. So we did provide those again. No changes. But that's kind of what that looks like. A couple different angles. That's from the entrance off of Midland. And then that's a good overview of the whole site. Thank you. We have a question from traffic. Just real quick. Is there a first floor retail on that one building? Is that? That's correct. On Building B and in this front corner, that'll be a retail space. Thank you very much. Applicant, do we have anybody from the community that would like to speak right now? All right. No one from the community. Let's bring her back to the group. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN-MJDP-2480, Arthur Abshar Property, former Lexington-Cutstone, with revised 16 conditions and change the number 16 to the Division of Engineering. Second. We have a motion of approval with a second. Let's all vote. Can we also have it be resolved? Is that okay to resolve that? Yeah. You want to resolve 16 then? Yeah. All right. Second. We have a revised motion and a second. Let's vote, please. Approved. Thank you. That leads us to PLN-MJDP-2482, Lexmark International. Okay, we're located. This is out Newtown Pike. We have, whoops, Newtown Pike. This is Freight Boulevard. It comes over to Setzer Way, which then leads us down here to Loudon Avenue. We were just out here, I guess, last month looking at Unit 7 down here, Lot 7 down here. Today, we're going to go down Freight Boulevard, and we're going to look at this lot here in the rear, the blow-up of this. They're going to replace the building and that they have right now, putting in new parking layout, and then they wanted to have a outdoor storage for commercial vehicles, construction vehicles, large. And they are also showing a fuel area in this outside, in this outdoor storage area. Should I keep going? Should I keep going since we're missing Bruce? Do we need him to vote? Okay, just want to check. So, after review, you can see the first 11 conditions are typical sign-offs. We just need to depict the streets in the vicinity map to clarify location, update site statistics box for all development, addition of Lot 7 information. Should this, should Lot 7 be recorded or signed before this, we'll need to have the information updated down here in this area for Lot 7. Denote review and recommendations of the Royal Springs Aquifer. I'm not sure that this has been, is this? Yes, I think it didn't, Greg, didn't it go last month too? Was this not been? Okay. So, this will have to go in front of the Royal Springs. It didn't get in there. So, we'll need to have notes as to what was the recommendation from them. They, they do not have a schedule, unfortunately. So, what we do is just email their main contact, which is Chase Azevedo, thank you, and they schedule a meeting as needed. Then we have documentation of lighting per Article 30 of the zoning ordinance and denote all parking area and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphalt, or other suitable hard surfaces per Article 16.3 of the zoning ordinance. When we, when reviewing this, they're showing the front portion being paved and then they're showing the rear portion in a gravel and our ordinance has changed and everything is to be paved at this time. So, with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. All right, do we have any more comments or questions for Mrs. Galt? We do not. Applicant. Good morning, my name is Greg Smorstad with Banks Engineering. So, like Cheryl described, when we originally submitted this plan, this building is going to be used as a heavy equipment rental business and so that's why we showed pavement up front and then gravel in the back. The owner was concerned about having all of this heavy tracked equipment on pavement and over the time that that pavement just being broken up. So, that's why we had it showed like that on the plan, but we do realize that, you know, Condition 17 says that, you know, all surfaces shall be paved. So, we're working on getting these changes completed and then also just waiting for the Royal Springs Committee's recommendations as well. So, but I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you'll have. Is your fuel tank underground? It is above ground. Okay, that would be helpful. It'll have a container under, catch container? Correct, yes. Yeah, so, well, and there's actually, there's a small detail right here about a fuel containment vault that would go around those fuel tanks. I mentioned in TRC that when FedEx came in with their facility, the Royal Springs Aquifer required some additional containment for their large vehicle parking areas in case their vehicle parking areas in case there were spills in those locations as well. So, that, depending on what the aquifer reports to you, there may be some additional requirements. Right. Yeah, yeah. So, we're just waiting to get those recommendations from them when we can get the meeting scheduled. Are there any more questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. May we, do we have anybody from the community that would like to speak? No, there's not. Okay, we'll bring that back to the group. Yes. Okay, Mr. Chair, I'm moving for approval of PLNMJDP 2482 Lexmark International section 2 lot 2 with the attached 17 conditions. We have an approval motion and a second. Let's vote, please. Please. Approved, thank you. That moves us to PLNMJDP 24-83 George West property. Okay, this property is located out Georgetown Road. This is Georgetown Road here. I'm going to say way out Georgetown Road. This property is split zone. There's a zone line that runs through the back here. We have agricultural. We have a flood plain that comes through there. The front portion of the property is on B3 for the corridor business zone. And so, with that, they came in with a revised plan, so you'll have revised recommendations on the plan. The first 11 conditions are typical sign-offs. We have addition of proposed and existing easements, addition of tree inventory map per Article 26, including tree location, species, and size. They have a list, but as you read the Article 26, it wants to know trees of certain sizes can be also significant trees, not just so we don't know the sizes on our trees, and they listed some trees on there, but we don't know where they're located. Use updated site statistics box per the Division of Planning. They have the site statistics box down here in the corner, but because the property is split zone with the agricultural and the B3, the B3 has the new lot coverage requirements, so to be able to make sure that we're meeting the lot coverage requirements in the B3 zone, we need to have the site statistics box updated to show how much acreage is in each lot in the AR zone and in the B3 zone, so that we can verify that they meet the lot coverage in the B3 zone. There are several property lines. This building here, this is an existing structure. It's a C store with pumps, so this is one lot, but then they show a property line that goes through here and down to Georgetown, and then the remaining portion is on another lot, so for us to be able to verify the lot coverage in the B3 zone, we need to have some more information in that site statistics box. Discuss dumpsters in the floodplain. There we go. They have their dumpsters located here, and they also show their floodplain coming down through here. Here's the 25 building setback. We don't really like to see dumpsters in flood areas. Discuss the timing of the LOMAR process. I know that they said that they were going to look at that, so we're not sure where they stand with that, and discuss the lot coverage per article 2-4 and article 20 of the zoning ordinance. That's where I was talking about the lot coverage in the B3 zone, and that's why we needed more specific information to be able to clarify on that. So with that, I'll leave it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Do we have any other comments or questions? Doesn't look like an applicant. Thank you, Ms. Galt. All right. Tree inventory. Okay. We should meet all the tree inventory requirements. We don't have any significant trees on site. We showed the tree canopies that are out there. That's what this is. So the only trees we're supposed to identify are the ones that are significant, and there isn't any. So that's why we don't have any trees labeled. How can we evaluate that if you don't provide the information? How can the urban forester find that it agrees with article 26 if you don't provide the sizes? I don't know that we've ever provided them except for significant trees. Okay. Well, we can talk about it, but it's hard to know if, yeah. Yeah. I mean, if we if we labeled every tree on that site, it would be a pretty busy plan. So that's why we've only been labeling the significant trees, and I don't know if the urban forester's been there. I think he has, but he has seen the plan, and he has not told us otherwise. But we have our own landscape architect that goes out and identifies all the trees. So but we can, you know, I'll work with you on that. So I do think everything's on there, but it turns out they're it, and we'll get it on there. Dumpster. Okay. Well, I'm going to tackle two things at once. Cheryl's talking about the dumpster being in the floodplain, and currently the floodplain is here. But what she didn't say is we have a cloamer already approved for the site, and the cloamer is what allows us to put the fill in. So based on the cloamer that's approved, the new floodplain will be here, and this dumpster is outside the floodplain. So the fill has to go in. It's already been put in for the gas station and some of this, but there's still more work to be done out there. Since they've never had a tenant or a user for this, they haven't put any fill in, and the site plan has changed from what it originally was. So, you know, normally you would wait until you know what's going in and then put the fill in. So the loamer process, that was on here, too. So the loamer comes, it's kind of like the as-built of the site. So the loamer will happen after all the fill's put in. We'll re-topo it. We'll submit that back to FEMA, and then once FEMA approves the loamer, then at some time they'll update the floodplain. They typically don't do it all at once. They do, I mean, they don't do it when we submit. They update it, you know, they may have like a hundred loamers, and they'll do it all at once. So that's kind of the process of how that works. So, dumpster will be out of the floodplain once the fill is placed, and then lot coverage, I think if we put on the table that Cheryl mentioned, it'll clear that up. So we do have, we're required to have 30% lot coverage in B3 now. We have exactly, we made our building exactly meet that 30%. So we're good, but I'll make sure our statistics reflect that. Other than that, any questions? Do we have any questions for the applicant? All right, thank you, applicant. Do we have any comments from the community? No, we don't. Thank you. Let's bring that back to the committee. Yeah, based on what you heard, are you still recommending postponement? Right now, we can't verify that it meets the B3 requirements based on the site statistics. And then the request was for the dumpsters discuss where they're located, but also the floodplain setback. So they're out of the floodplain, but is there, can they not be shifted out of the setback as well? I just wasn't aware the setback applied to the dumpster. I thought it was more for buildings, not being within 25 feet for structures. So if the fencing and everything around it is, I mean, the fencing is a temporary, if it was block wall or something, but this offense is just, again, those are both options, right? The masonry block wall around it as well, or the poles with the wood fence are, and generally it's still given a permit as a structure because it's, well, if it can't be, we'll move it. So no big deal for us. Yes, oh, absolutely. Well, just the resolving that doesn't necessarily address all the other issues. So yeah, thank you. Applicant, we'll bring it back to the committee. Mr. Chairman, I moved for postponement of PLN MJDP 2483 George West, the state property. With recognition and postponement and changing number with the 15 revised conditions and changing number 15 from discussed to resolve. Second. We have a motion and a second for postponement. Let's vote, please. Motion passes. Approved. Thank you. Now we're on to the zoning development plans. PLN MJDP 24-81 Lane Allen Park, lot two and three. All right. This is final development plan in conjunction with the zone change from single family residential R1A to planned neighborhood residential R3 zone. This is located where Lane Allen meets Parker's Mill Road on the northwest side. There are proposed 25 single family homes with the street configuration around a central block. There are five standard sign offs. And then we discussed a couple of revisions. They added the note on no building permits should be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved. And then they added trees to the development plan to match the tree inventory map. We discussed that. And then in the technical committee, we discussed the preservation of the existing residential structure. It's located in this area. It's on the Blue Grass Trust. And we had a little bit of discussion about that. And then we had a discussion about the floodplain. Currently it shows the extent of the floodplain is here. But when you look at the topo, it's obvious there's a little bit more that could be there. So there was a discussion about the need to possibly do more of a study. And then we had a discussion about the potential improvements to Parker's Mill Road. There's a project in. I don't remember. There's a project on the MPO's tip. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Transportation Improvement Program. And then to discuss the place builder criteria. And the technical review committee's recommendation was for postponement. Regarding the questions about the historic nature of the existing home and the need for a floodplain study. Let me ask you this question. Is this located right at the end of Lane Island where it goes into Parker's Mill? Correct. Is it across the road from where Lane Island butts into that so it's very high? It's a lot of grade up to the top of it. Yes, and the house sits way in the back. So there's the floodplain in the middle is the low. I know where it is. Is there a sewer to that? Adjacent. It's adjacent, man. It goes in the back of the house. Yeah. He wanted sewer put up to his house. So he's got a ladder up to it. Okay, yeah, I'm very familiar with that piece of property. I think we started. One time we looked at a halfway house or something. No, that was down the road. Down the road? Oh, is it next to the adjacent? Yes. Okay. Fine, thank you. I was about to say don't worry. And just to clarify, our staff report does say final development plan, but this is actually a preliminary development plan for the zone change and also a preliminary subdivision plan. No. No. They said they weren't going to do a preliminary subdivision at this time To get the information in two weeks' time would have been a challenge. Okay. So just a preliminary development. Is this now the applicant? So they're going to try to save the house? No, but it was a discussion item. Okay. We wondered and asked. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. And just wanted to give some information about the place builder criteria in that last discussion item. And so the applicant is seeking to situate this as an enhanced neighborhood, low-density residential. So the choice in zone matches there. With respect to public engagement, I attended a public engagement meeting. This was back in August. It was at the adjoining church next door, I guess, would be a plan face to the right there. And that was very well attended. And there was some concerns from the neighborhood at the time regarding kind of flooding was probably the primary concern of the neighbors. But then there were discussions about the character of the development, what size the lots they were going to be, traffic impact and sort of traffic improvements on Parker's mill and Lane Allen. They note that that fence and as someone who has lived in that area for a while, that fence usually lives about a year or two at a time, Max. So there was concerns about sort of the traffic impact, about future improvements there. And so the applicant was present for that. With regards to the zone change recommendations and what we look at, there was some further information needed on sort of how the floodplain was being handled in those. There also are criteria that kind of direct the applicant to give a full explanation as to how they are going to kind of handle that home in the rear of the property located approximately here, that our records look like the original most historic portion of the house dates back to about 1813. So it's bluegrass trust. It's not a part of any historic national historic register, but it is a bluegrass trust house. So we're asking the applicant to provide information about that, the feasibility of retaining that and explore kind of solutions for, for retaining that. So staff is recommending postponement of the zone change later on this afternoon to address the flood questions and the home itself. Thank you. With no further questions for the staff, we're ready for the applicant. You got the army up here. Slip up, which is highly likely. Thank you. I'm Bruce Simpson on behalf of the Rose family. First, I compliment the staff for providing microphones. It's helped a couple of neighborhoods that I represented or will help them when they attend again. And to be honest, helping me too. So I appreciate it. A couple of points. We did have a meeting. I need lots of help. We did have a neighborhood meeting is Daniel said back in August, it was very well attended, filled up most of the sanctuary. We actually invited, you know, the notification for rezoning. It's 500 feet from the subject property. We sent out invitations 2000 feet away so that everybody was fully informed, even those well outside of the notification area, because we wanted, I know how these things work and I wanted everybody to hear firsthand what the proposal was. I'm very familiar with this area. It was one of the first zone changes I did on behalf of the original colony neighborhood in 1993. The original colony neighborhood was the impetus for how colony two was developed and Parker's mill landing. But for a colony, the old colony, original colony neighborhood, this area would look nothing like it looks today. They were very engaged. And so when Dan asked me to represent them, I said, you know, we have to match up for me to do the case with what has developed around the neighborhood. And so one of the first commitments we made to the neighbors was to have deed restrictions that equal or exceed the deed restrictions for all the surrounding neighborhoods, including those on the other side of Parker's mill road. And we've done that and I've submitted the proposed restrictions as a supplemental justification this week to the staff. Matt will deal with the floodplain issue. Suffice to say, there is a floodplain on the property. Our proposal will deal with that issue by way of a clomer. You all have heard of those before. If zoning is approved, there's a lot of study that's required for that. We'll need to get approval from the Army Corps of Engineers. It will have to pass our planning staff and the Division of Water before that's done. That's a condition of approval that has to be filtered, of course, through the development process post zoning. Now, stormwater. Stormwater was a problem back in 1993. I'm very familiar with the downstream flooding, even beyond where the water goes immediately to houses on Chinquapin and on past even into Cardinal Valley. It's part of a large watershed that was never fully addressed, which resulted in part to the consent degree being entered a number of years ago to deal with that. And so prior to doing the development plan, we engaged Vision Engineering and they have said that we will be able to hold more water back and actually improve the current stormwater situation because right now it just flows directly off of the Wilhite property to houses downstream north of the subject property. There's houses on Chinquapin, right, that since 1993 that have had stormwater in their basements and have sump pumps running. And so we intend to minimize substantially over and above what the current requirements are for detaining stormwater to address those situations. We believe we'll actually improve stormwater. With respect to Parkers Mill Road, we're going to dedicate a substantial part of the property for future improvements to Parkers Mill Road. We'll have a bike lane, sidewalks, and a bus stop. And we'll have a shelter that will be part of what we're proposing to do. I can supplement all of this in writing. I need to inform the neighborhood of the results of today's meeting and this afternoon's meeting. I did inform the neighborhood back in August of this meeting, two meetings this morning and the afternoon so they could attend and be fully informed. I will update them on all the filings that we've had after today so, again, they're fully informed. And, quite frankly, we're aware that we need their support. So we've been very transparent in all of this and will continue to be transparent. Now, this is not the typical density that you all want to see. I get that. But the current property is zoned for one-acre lots minimum. We could put seven one-acre lots on the property without a zone change. We're proposing to have 26 lots, 25 homes. That's a nominal increase with respect to its impact on Parkers Mill Road management, as opposed to creating more density with more impervious surface and the existing flooding problems, um, south or north of the subject property. So we believe we have a reasonable density increase over what is currently zone to be without a zone change. We're going to improve stormwater above what it's been historically from this property. Um, and we're gonna dedicate our section to improvements of Parker's mill. As you all know, you added some land to the urban services area, uh, further up on Parker's mill close to Man o' War. So and just to prove the master plan. So, you know, development is coming down Parker's Mill Road, and that road's gonna have to be improved. Not it hasn't been a high priority, but it will have to be. Um, and we believe we're proposing a compatible low density project that does increase density beyond what it currently is over 300%. And with the deed restrictions to ensure cat ability, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, believe we believe it's a fit for this particular site. It's surrounded by low density properties of the same size and price range. Pretty much. We intend to match that for the most part and and have a choice. I'll be a choice of higher end homes. Um, but it's a choice that our comprehensive plan certainly encourages. There'll be high quality, um, to match up with the neighborhood that's evolved with the neighborhood's leadership. Um, you know, for the past 30 years, and I'll let Matt address the proposal. We're gonna deal with stormwater management and the floodplain issue. Okay, here's here's our floodplain. So just explain a little bit about why it just ends like that. So the way FEMA establishes floodplains is they take cross sections. They do them probably every 500 feet down the stream. So it ended right here and squared up because that's where they had a section. They don't map outside of their sections. They they have to have a model that that models exactly where it is. So since they don't have a section here, they didn't extend it. But if you follow the contours, you can you can kind of see this one because it's heavier. That's the end of the floodplain. I mean, this is where it's going to map out. So it does get in these lots. So what we're proposing to do, um, we're gonna put a note on this development plan. The note, I'm gonna read it to you. It says per Article 19 of the zoning ordinance, a special use permit and clomer shall be obtained prior to issuance of a land disturbance permit. Um, and I can leave you all this note if we're all in agreement with him. Um, why do we not want to do it right now? Because it's a zone change. It's it's too preliminary when we get to the next step when we're designing the basin and we know what the grades and elevations are going to be. Then we will file a clomer. Well, first, we'll file for a special use permit and which Vaughn, you may can explain this better than me. When we apply for that, we're probably going to get denied initially and then they'll send us to this board and then we'll go into, we're doing a clomer and all that. And then that's how that's just the process. And getting denied does not like mean we can't do it. It just means that's what sends us to the next step. So we will, when we get to that next step, which is when we're designing the project, we'll, we'll do a grading plan. We'll, we'll prepare a clomer. We'll go through that special use permit process. We'll meet with engineering. There's other people too involved. Um, is it water quality or the floodplain coordinator and all these guys, they'll, they'll get involved. That's the really the point where the floodplain issue gets resolved. It doesn't get resolved for a zone change. So yeah. Yes. Yeah. Right. Um, the mapped floodplains governed by article 19, the vegetative buffer is to be protected. Um, they submit their special use permit request. It gets denied because they're disturbing the vegetative buffer and Doug would deny the special use permit. So then the article 19 says you go to the flood plain appeals committee. So it is a process, but it starts with the proven the zone change for us. So, um, so what are we going to do next? Um, by filling this in, it really has no effect. It is the upper end of the floodplain. So it's the least impactful part of the floodplain. Uh, right here we're putting a detention basin and that's going to help improve water downstream. Um, currently when, when the water gets up, uh, at times it even tops parkers mill road. So it also does the flooding in the houses, uh, in the neighborhood you were discussing. So we hope this it's not required of us, but it's just something, it's a plus that's going to happen when we do our detention, it's going to help downstream. Um, so do you have any other questions about the floodplain? If not, I was going to address, um, I don't see it on here, but I think it came up was the typical section for parkers mill road. Um, we're showing a 70 ft section. Is that acceptable? We don't have the details of it, but we're dedicating the width of it for the like potential future right away. You're saying like, yeah, I can double check. I'm not sure there's any sort of concrete plan as of yet, but I'm sure it's not gonna be an enormous when it is improved. I'm sure it's not gonna be. And that's why we didn't show any detail other than dedicating that right away with because we don't know what the future plans of that road are. So, and maybe that's something we can flush out in the next process when we go to preliminary subdivision plan. So, uh, just, uh, follow up on what map said with respect to the clomer. Obviously, if that's not approved, we're not gonna be able to build on those lots. So it's a development process, as you all know, that has to be past every stage, even subsequent to zoning. Um, and there's a process to address that with respect to the house. Dr. Will Heights House. Um, I'm gonna let Dan Rose speak about that in more detail because he invited the president of Bluegrass Trust to come out and look at the house and, um, the problems with the house. It's had so many additions attached to it over the years that it's historic character was extinguished. Um, but I'll let Dan follow up on that because he had the personal meeting with the representative of Bluegrass Trust. Dan Rose. Yeah. How are you, Dan Rose? My brother Kurt is in back here and where the owners of the company bought the property. Uh, I'd be glad to answer any questions you have. Maybe a couple of other points I wanted to make to about what Bruce and Matt said. But on the house, just to give you some background, Kurt lives in the colony right now. Kurt lives in his house on this line here. So he's he's lived there for years and years in the colony. So he's very familiar with the area. Uh, Kurt and I both grew up with Jimmy Wilhite, uh, and his mother basically and mother and father lived in that house. They bought it in 1964. They bought the entire 11 acres. Uh, so we were very, you know, we knew them very familiar with the area. We're both from Lexington, went to Lafayette, grew up over in Meta Thorpe. So we, we, we, you know, we know why this property we've been by this property as long as we've lived in Lexington. So, um, you know, when it came on the market, you know, I've looked into it. It was, you know, already zoned our one a for one acre lots. Uh, talk to Bruce and we felt like from the comp plan proposals that it needed to be a higher density. And so we've approached it in that respect and we feel like this is a really, uh, it's going to be a very nice property, a very nice development for that area. Complimentary to the colony, complimentary to Parker's landing. It's going to be very beautiful and I can explain a little more about how it's going to integrate in with the Parker's mill, the intersection there, Elaine Allen. But on the house when we bought it, we went to the house, we looked at it, we, we initially thought we might be able to save in and renovate it to be in line with the other homes that we have planned for the property. Uh, but once we got in the house, we realized it really had been neglected over like a long time. And, uh, I don't know how long dr Wilhite had been deceased, but his widow has been living there for a long time. But once we got in there, the front of the house was a, an old, the oldest portion is really just sort of a square with two rooms down, two rooms up. And I went in it and I went upstairs the first time and I tried to walk in the rooms on either side and the headers hit me in the head. They're just, it was, it wasn't even like you couldn't live practically in the, you even use the upstairs, the back of the house on the right, there was like a, basically a frame garage that had been put there that was essentially falling down. They had built a kitchen behind that. There was also a frame construction. It looks like maybe somewhere in the, like the forties or fifties, it might have been put on the 1940s or fifties. Then behind the older structure, they had made an addition that looks like again, it had been put on maybe in the 1950s, sixties that had like a skylight. It, it, it really would, it had nothing to do in terms of the historical integration with the rest of the house. And then they extended that out to the left. So the net of it all was probably 70% or more of the square footage of the home wasn't even historical. It was just that front section and which really wasn't even practical for anybody to use the way people live their lives today. There was no bathrooms in that section. And so I had rock Daniels who you may know, he, he's done some historical renovations here in town. I had him look at it. I had Jeff Gale look at it, who is a custom builder with a view to say, is, could this house be saved? Is there a way to make it functional to where people want to live today? They both looked at it and said, look, you could spend, you might spend $750,000, $800,000 on this house to even try to make it usable. And even then, it probably wouldn't be something that people would want given the investment you put into it. So unfortunately, you know, the consensus was that we just, it couldn't, it didn't work. Also, one problem with saving the house, it sat really in the back in that backup right corner. It probably would have prevented us from adding a couple of lots at least. So it would have, it would have reduced the density we could get. And so basically I had John Connelly diversify demolition. He pulled the building permit. Oh, let me say one thing about in terms about the historical preservation issues. I had Zach Leonard of Bluegrass Trust. We invited him out. He came out, looked at the house, was like, hey, you know, I went through this whole process with him too. We let him get in the house. He photographed it, uh, for documentation. I gave him some historical paperwork that Miss Wilhite had given me that I gave to him to preserve for Bluegrass Trust. Zach, and you could talk to Zach yourself. He agreed that our analysis was correct and that it wasn't practical to try to save the home given the additions that have been made to it. They compromised its historical value as well as just the integrity structurally for purposes of somebody living there. So we pulled a demo permit. It actually is, uh, they've torn down some of the outbuildings and actually the house is probably, it's probably down. They were out there this week tearing it down. So that's what we had to do with the house. That concludes our presentation. Be happy to respond to any questions. Commission has. All right. Does the commission have any questions? No, we don't. Is there anybody from the community that has a question? No. Thank you. Applicant. We appreciate you. That brings it back to the commission. Still recommending post time. Okay. We are at that. They're denoting, you know, infrastructure and lots in the floodplain, which does not comply with article 19. And there, what we, what I just heard and director Burton was, there's an assumption that a discretionary board will approve whatever they're asking for. And I think that's not really where we should start. Um, we should start with how to comply with the zoning ordinance, um, in order to document that your development agrees with, it is in compliance with the zoning ordinance first. So that's part of the reason of having a development plan associated with his own change. And then in addition, the comprehensive plan, how are we, you know, in agreement with that? So we still have quite a few concerns. I guess so. Since they tore down the house, I don't know what I think, I think Matt mentioned he wanted to comment it is a preliminary. So everything is, I mean, we're not building off this. So that's what, I'm not sure why, why we have to have all the floodplain issues resolved because it's preliminary and we can't build off by, by allowing us to have this preliminary approved. Basically that lets us go to that next step. And you know, if you refuse it and say, I mean, if you turned the preliminary down and, and the zone change, then we wouldn't go to that next step. So it just seems, uh, the burden should not go on the zone changes should go on the preliminary subdivision plan, which is, which is where you would be able to move forward with the project. So the issue is that you're, you're getting the cart ahead of the horse big time here because you're counting on, you know, that you're effectively guaranteed disapproval by floodplain administrator, which is me, which requires you go to the floodplain appeals committee, which they uphold article 19. So you're counting on something we know you can't get. So why move forward with counting on something, you know, you can't get because it's preliminary and yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you. We'll bring that back to the committee, please. Yeah. Another comment from the applicant. I mean, the issue when you, when you approve zone changes all the time, you have standard conditions. You can approve a zone change, but those conditions aren't satisfied when to get to move forward after the zoning with subdivision plan. The project ends. There's constant checks and balances all along the way, but developers, um, are required to do homework up to different stages because, you know, it takes, there's no use of doing a whole big study. And then the zone change gets denied. If this gets denied after zoning, those lights aren't developed. This and this isn't unusual. This isn't like this hasn't happened before. We're not trying to bypass anything. We're just delaying the scrutiny, just like we don't come in with grading plans for zone change applications to show how we're going to deal with the floodplain. That's not required. The zone change is a broader decision. But then, as you all know, we deal if you dealt with it on all the cases up to now, you get into the intricate details of compliance with the zoning ordinance. And if you don't comply with those provisions, you can't build. The zoning is of no effect. So there's protections in there in the law to assure that developers have to comply with the zoning ordinance before they can construct anything. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant. Now we're back to the committee. Yeah. Thank you. I'm used to that. Uh, so I don't know. I just I don't think there's enough development plan here for us to do anything but postpone until till we're here from the zone. Yes. Are you ready for motion, Mr Chairman? Yes. I move to postpone the PLN MJ DP 24 81 18 99 Parkers Mill Road. Deleting number six and for the reason provided by staff in the just second. All right. We have a motion in second. Let's all vote. Postponement has been approved. Thank you. That moves us to postponement. Yes. Now we have re approvals and continue discussions and extensions. Thank you. So our next two items are reapproval or continued discussion extension items. So these items have been heard by the planning commission previously and the applicants are asking for, um, additional action by the planning commission. The first one is PLN MJ SUV 19 dash six for the Tuscany subdivision unit 15 and Tuscany subdivision is located generally, um, south of Winchester road, kind of wrapping around, um, behind Douglas Frederick Douglas high school and also connects over to, um, y'all are trade center on one side and then, oh, fortune, sorry. It can, it would be an extension of trade center, I think at fortune and then over to, um, polo club. We also have Haymaker Parkway and meeting street in there. So it's a pretty big area. Um, the applicant is asking for an extension of this preliminary subdivision plan. Um, they filed that on October 7th and, um, the plan was previously approved by the planning commission on November 14th, 2019. So on November 14th to 2024, this plan will expire unless the commission extends the approval. So the way the subject land subdivision regulations, um, word this is that the applicant has to document that there's been physical improvements on the property that, um, are continuing and they're basically that they're making progress towards their subdivision. And at this point, the applicant hasn't provided any additional information other than asking for the extension. So, uh, again, where we are, here's fortune and trade center and the currently trade center just steps into the corner of this property. So that roadway would continue through and I think it gets renamed to, um, Haymaker Parkway. Is that one of these is Haymaker Parkway. Is that right? Rory? Yeah. Um, and then connects up to meeting street. And the rest of this area is either under construction or has already been, um, built with single family homes. So this is a portion that backs up to another, um, commercial area on fortune and there's a larger floodplain in that area too. Thank you, Paula. Um, floodplain on the Eastern side of the site and then this is not technically floodplain, but is it a drainage, uh, way behind there? So the question is, has there been substantial, you know, completion of the subdivision in terms of improvements? And then also even, even so the planning commission can make changes too because our regulations have changed since, uh, this was approved, including block link. At this point, the staff's not recommending an extension because we don't have any documentation from the applicant about what work they've accomplished. Yeah. Yeah. We'll submit a letter, um, for your next or by Thursdays. Um, they've got their construction plans, approved LDP, the men on site, they've got the silk fences in, they've got their construction accesses built. I believe. Were you there long? All that. Okay. So they've been working diligently as long as the transfer was available with this. Um, we'll get you a letter. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Is there anybody from the community that would like to speak? It doesn't look like it. So let's bring it to the committee. Um, I know we're running out of time and running out of people. So if anyone would like to make a motion, we can go ahead and do that. Um, talking about the next one. So there's really not no action for the committee to take at this point other than, yeah. Okay, great. Are the balance of, do we need to vote on any other items? Uh, yes we do. We do. Next, um, we have South Broadway place phase two C, which is also, um, and up for action for the planning commission located at 10 80 export street. This is a request from the applicant to reapprove the plan. So it was approved, um, on August 10th of 2023, but it was not certified within the year. So the applicant is asking for a reapproval with, I believe no changes. Is that right, Kevin? Yeah. So I think the staff would recommend that you reapprove it for another year. If you want to take action on that, there's really no change. So no action, no change. You can take, you can make a recommendation. Okay. We can make a recommendation. I move for reapproval of PLM MJ DP 2340 South Broadway place. Second. We got a second. Let's vote please. Motion passes. Approved. Thank you. Okay. If there is, did you say only one more that needs to be voted on? Um, um, we're running out of time here on, uh, with a couple of different, we have two people that we could have cut some people off earlier than anyway. Uh, moving on next item that does have discussion is the Millstone Heights property and that's PLM MJ DP 2473. So the last time this was in front of the subdivision committee, it actually looked quite different. Um, the, I'm going to zoom in on that. The site was oriented so that townhouses faced each other and they have re or been reoriented and we've lost a few units. So, um, the developer has now, um, proposed fronting five units on the East high street within a kind of a secondary layer of townhouses to the rear of another five units with a central drive access. So accessing East high street coming behind the front townhomes and then in front of the rear townhomes and then connecting back to East high street, uh, where there's a, there's already an existing 10 foot alley. So this is between Rose street and I don't even know what the residential street behind is. But, um, before you get to Rose street, so across the road is historic. Um, the historic district for Aylesford neighborhood and then also, um, sing, mostly single or multifamily residential structures that remain. And then just to the North of North plan North on this, I guess North in real life too, um, is the like high on Rose corner as, um, with commercial development that kind of wraps around Lynn's in Lynn, Lynn imaging to the East and other, um, commercial development that faces out onto old vine street. So the changes were reducing, um, units from 12 to 10 reorienting to East high street and then changing the internal circulation. Um, in addition to that, there were some questions previously about, um, solid waste and the applicant has mentioned, um, to the staff that they proposed to do private, um, solid waste collection so that the city won't have to, um, enter through and pick up, um, solid waste through the site. Um, and then they also do have a few changes that they still need to make on the plan. Um, although they note the millstone is the, um, design group, it doesn't actually tell us if they're the engineer landscape architect or planner, um, responsible for the site design. So we'll need to know, you know, what they have done here. Is it the engineering work, the landscape, whatever it is, um, as opposed to just, um, their logo. And then they need to remove proposed from the alley cross section because that is an existing alley that's already recorded. Um, we still need to denote where the construction vehicle will be on the face of the plan. They have a note, but it doesn't show, um, on the face of the plan. We do denote that the planning commission will need to make a finding for use of an access easement for access and frontage to these rear lots. Um, they would only have access via this access easement and then their frontage would come from the access easement as well. They wouldn't have frontage on a public street. Um, they also need to denote or discuss how they're going to comply with article 15 dash seven, which is our infill and redevelopment standards. And then compliance with article 20, which is our open space standards. And then the last was to discuss tree preservation. We did have a lengthy conversation about that at tech committee last month and it looks to me like they do intend to keep one tree of the six that were discussed, um, along the edge of the property. So if they could just kind of highlight why that's proposed to just keep one. So, but staff is recommending approval at this point. All right. Thank you. Any questions for the staff? No, let's move on to the applicant and we don't mean to cut you short, but we've got an approval recommendation and some that need to leave and may cause a quorum problem. Okay. I will be super quick. I'll just answer the tree question. I think that's, um, the one that you guys want answered. One of the six existing trees is invasive, so that one is proposed to be removed. The other three that are proposed to be removed, we have to build a sidewalk connection, provide a dumpster and these buildings. And I don't think it's possible to save those trees without damaging them or them dying in the process. We are saving one. We can try to save a second. The only reason I don't have that denoted on the plan is because we cannot provide the correct, um, I guess, tree preservation fencing around it. The dimensions that are required. We'll try during construction to save it, but I, I can't promise it'll be saved. I don't know what the, what the roots are doing there. Um, but we are preserving one and I believe the requirement is zero, but we are trying. I emailed, uh, the urban forester and he had no comment on the changes to the plan. Um, if that answers your question. Okay. I think that answers our questions and we'll bring it back to that. Is there anybody from the community that'd like to speak? Does not look like it. All right. Back to the committee. Okay. Do we do anything with number 19 on this? Leave it. You can delete it. I don't, it doesn't, if you want to, 17 and 18 will still need to be resolved. We don't have information on the plan regarding those two. Do you want to change those to resolve or leave them as discussed? Resolve? Resolve. Okay. All right. And, uh, deleting number 19 it's already been to the urban forester and he didn't say anything. I move for approval of PLNM JDB 2473 with 18 conditions changing number 17, to resolve number 18, resolve and eliminating number 19. Sir, we have a motion for approval in a second. Let's please vote. Approved. Thank you. Applicant. Real quick. This is just a real quick on the back page. Um, these guys have been here all morning, so I just wanted to quickly, um, oops. Um, this property is Ethington, Ethington out off Harrodsburg road. Um, this is where the location for a Chick-fil-A, it's already here. It's been in operation for quite a while. Um, they came in and they wanted to add or widen, I'm sorry, widen the access point to get into their lot for stacking of cars. Um, this was something that Tom had looked at and when I found the folder, it said to traffic was not in a, in a, um, an agreement with it. So that's why we're bringing it to the division or to planning commission for you all to review as to whether or not the idea of widening their access point is in agreement. I don't know if Dave has anything he wanted to add to this. I'll just say this is something I guess has been posed before or typical for the commercial was 30 and that's what we wanted to keep them at. Uh, we didn't see a particular reason that this had a special circumstance that required a 30. I know that there was some instance of the Kroger getting 36, but I think that we, in that instance, we only, uh, they showed us the pathway for their trucks that would be unloading fuel. And that's where they get those locations where we allow 36. But in this instance, our subdivision regulation is 30 and that's what we will, we don't feel there's a special circumstances that, that, yeah, that weren't a wider access point. So the reason why we're bringing it to you all is to make that decision. It's a staff item and we just want it to have you review it. It has to refer, we have to refer it to the commission if we can't have it certified because the sign off correct. That's our, that'd be our recommended traffic recommendation. We need to hear from the applicant and we can make a decision on that. And the concern would be health and safety and transportation. Obviously. Thank you. Hi, Alan Wiley with GBC design. Um, certainly respect the code and everything. As you mentioned, the Kroger does have a 36. I saw you guys approve a 50 foot wide one earlier today at the other. Now we're already, already discussed. I was like, you can't, they're not gonna be able to do the 50. He's like, okay, we can. Yeah. Yeah. That's why it's the end. I was like, are you going to check those changes? And he's like, yeah, we're, they hadn't made any changes yet. Okay. Um, the reason that we're trying to do the three lanes or the 36 feet is we want three lanes. We want one out, one in to get to the parking lot, and then one to just direct people right into the drive through to try to keep people off of Coco's way there. Um, they're currently, they're backing up there for allowed to have two lanes in. It's going to allow efficiency of getting people on the site and into the drive through, which will hopefully keep people off of Coco's way. That's the main reason for wanting to do this. Similar to what's been proposed for Nicholasville road. No, that was different. Yeah, I'm going to head shake back there. Yeah, we're, we're, we're looking to do this. It's going to increase public safety in my opinion, because it's just going to allow cars to get off Coco's way. And then, you know, if they're backing up to Madrone as well, allow them to get off that street too. And the operators here, and would you like to speak Blake? No. Okay. I guess just like, it looks like you might be able to get two more vehicles before it then backs into the street. Still. I don't, I guess our perspective, it doesn't seem like a radical change to radically alter existing operation and it's in our standards 30. So that's, I guess that's just our perspective. So the main goal would be the fact that now currently we have drive through cars and parking cars in the same lane trying to get in. And if we're able to separate those, it would allow them to go in quicker. Okay. That makes sense. So the additional, the increase in the size of the entrance would be to allow vehicles to access the parking lot and avoid the stacking of vehicles on Cocoa lane. Is that correct? That's the goal. Yes. Okay. Another issue that when cars are turning in to get into the drive through, we've got bigger trucks. Um, and so that radius right there to get them to cut in is causing more of a traffic jam than it should. So widening the opening to 36 feet will allow for larger vehicles to just jump right into the drive through, making it more efficient to get off of Cocoa's way versus the 30 foot you're kind of stuck. Bigger vehicles can't just turn into the drive through. They have to wait. They kind of have to back up, get stuck, pull back in. So it helps larger vehicles turn around that curb right there. Does that make sense? That does. I think you could achieve that with the angle. You're showing an angular angle instead of coming up and going directly into the radius. I mean, I think the angle would achieve that as much as the widening in my opinion. But vehicles are doing more than 180 degree turn right now. 90 degrees by the time the kids are coming back up here instead of straight. But if we only have a 30 feet that makes them 15 foot wide lanes and if we get that additional width, that's going to give them more room to make that turn as well. Right. But that, most of the cars coming through there are going to be people leaving the drive through, I would assume to get back out to the headroom. Right. And that's those people are going to end up coming in that way and coming in the plan. South lane for the drive through, I would assume it's not going to be, you know, you're still going to have big trucks wanting to come in that other way, the back way. Cause people aren't going to want to navigate through all that parking lot to get to the drive through three, four years, three or two years. Okay. Yes. Yeah. No, we did not. Sometimes we learn things as stores are open that the plan doesn't necessarily work all the time and we have to make adjustments. Okay. Just in terms of understanding the process, we're going back and forth about what happens next. If we either approve or disapprove here, it's still going to the full commission and the commission can make a change, right? Okay. So I'm going to do the, I'm going to flip race and save because it sets a precedent. I'm going to move to disapprove the request. With more time to walk, talk it through. We're rushing through this today. I'm not comfortable with that. Mr. Chairman, I move to disapprove PLM NDP 2432. No, I just moved it. I just need a second. I'll give you the second. 25 yes. Say it and then I'm down more. All four against showing, just showing. All right. Thank you. Applicant. Are we, what is this? We have one more. We have a minor plan is just again, same thing. This is, um, this is a different Nick Nicholsville road and, um, the Chick-fil-a. Is this the one we've seen multiple times? The one we saw last last month and the applicant has now met with traffic engineering and they are going, my conversation yesterday was going to submit a revised plan to reflect the conversations with traffic engineering and we can present that next week. So there's no, no need for action today. Just wanted to show you that we're working again with Chick-fil-a. Were they able to get the property? Was it the property owner that was, so there was a player who had not participated? Red Lobster. Lobster. They haven't still haven't participated. Okay. Okay. And then before you leave, Daniel will hand you some information about text amendments. All right. Thank you. Since everybody is rushed, we're going to go ahead and receive the information, but adjourn first. So we're going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you everybody. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .