# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - February 13, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · February 13, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6338 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6338?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-02-13 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 28, 2026 - **Length**: 8,282 words > ⚠️ **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 Urban County Planning Commission convened on February 13, 2025, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding. The meeting addressed three categories of agenda items: Final Subdivision Plans, Development Plans, and Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit. Across these items, the Commission took a total of 15 votes, with outcomes ranging from postponements to approvals — Final Subdivision Plans were postponed, Development Plans saw varied outcomes, and Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit were approved. Three public comments were heard during the course of the meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 13, 2025 Commission meeting: - Larry Forester - Mike Owens - Ivy Barksdale - William Wilson - Judy Worth - Bruce Nicol - Frank Penn Three members were absent: J Davis, Z Davis, and Michler. No members arrived late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took the following actions at its February 13, 2025 meeting: - **December 12, 2024 Minutes** – Moved by Judy Worth, seconded by William Wilson. Approved 7–0 with 1 abstention. [timestamp: 0:01:05] - **Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit** – Moved by William Wilson, seconded by Frank Penn. Approved unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:01:41] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00001 – GDK Farm, LLC (Turner Property)** – Moved by Frank Penn, seconded by Mike Owens. Postponed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:03:24] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00003 – Sikura Justice Property, Unit 6** – Moved by Mike Owens, seconded by Judy Worth. Postponed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:04:27] - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00011 – Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association, Lots 4 & 5** – Moved by Mike Owens, seconded by William Wilson. Postponed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:05:36] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00056 – Red Mile Mixed-Use Development** – Moved by William Wilson, seconded by Frank Penn. Postponed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:06:45] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00096 – Ramsey Sullivan Property, Unit 3, Lot 1** – Moved by Frank Penn, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. Withdrawn unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:07:22] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00099 – Givens Property, Outlot 7 (7Brew)** – Moved by Ivy Barksdale, seconded by Judy Worth. Postponed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:08:26] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00100 – Hamburg East, Lot 4-C (Firebirds Wood Fired Grill)** – Moved by William Wilson, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. Postponed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:09:01] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00097 – Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 4** – Moved by Frank Penn, seconded by Mike Owens. Postponed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:10:47] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00002 – Givens Property, Outlot 6 (Wendy's)** – Moved by William Wilson, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. Postponed unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:12:22] - **Consent Agenda** – Seconded by Judy Worth. Approved unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:15:39] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00100 – Distillery District, West Unit 1** – Moved by Mike Owens, seconded by Judy Worth. Continued unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 0:46:47] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00005 – Denton Farms, Unit 2, Lot 1** – Moved by Bruce Nicol, seconded by William Wilson. Approved unanimously, 7–0, subject to 21 staff recommendations. [timestamp: 1:03:07] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00005 – EAMP Compliance Statement for Denton Farms, Unit 2** – Moved by Bruce Nicol, seconded by Frank Penn. Approved unanimously, 7–0. [timestamp: 1:04:12] ## Public Comment Three members of the public addressed the Commission during the February 13, 2025 meeting, raising concerns about two separate development projects. **Distillery District Development** - **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 28:11] spoke about the proposed development in the Distillery District, focusing on concerns related to floodplain safety. Specifically, she questioned the use of guardrails as a measure to prevent trailers from washing away in a floodplain area. Clark urged the Commission to postpone approval of the project until more information could be made available. - **Zina Merkin** [timestamp: 32:28] also addressed the Distillery District, raising concerns about the potential consequences of filling in the floodplain. She highlighted the possible effects such activity could have on existing businesses and historic buildings in the area. Like Clark, Merkin emphasized that additional information was needed before the Commission moved forward with any decisions. **Denton Farms Development** - **David Osborne** [timestamp: 54:26] commented on the Denton Farms development, specifically requesting that the height of Building 3 be reduced so that it does not exceed the peak heights of the surrounding single-family homes. Osborne expressed concern that, as currently proposed, the building would dwarf the neighboring residences. The public comments reflected two recurring themes: a call for greater caution and additional information regarding floodplain development in the Distillery District, and concern about building scale compatibility with existing residential neighborhoods in the Denton Farms project. ## Contested Items - **Distillery District Floodplain Development:** Community members raised concerns about a proposed development in the Distillery District, focusing on floodplain-related risks associated with the site. Speakers objected to aspects of the proposal, specifically questioning the use of guardrails as a measure to prevent trailers from washing away — a detail that drew pointed scrutiny from those in attendance. The opposition centered on whether the development was appropriate given the flood risks present in the area. No outcome or resolution data is available from the meeting record for this item. ## Final Subdivision Plans [timestamp: 0:02:16] The Commission took up Agenda Item 1, a discussion of various Final Subdivision Plans. Key speakers on this item included **Jihad Hallany** and **Zach Cato**. The plans under consideration included submissions from the **Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association** and the **Liberty Road Service Center**, among others. The outcome of this agenda item was that the matter was **postponed**. No further details regarding the specific concerns raised, the nature of the presentations, or the reasons for postponement are available from the meeting record. ## Development Plans [timestamp: 16:12] The commission reviewed development plans for several properties during this agenda item, with discussion centered on the Distillery District and Denton Farms projects. Key speakers included Chris Chaney, Jihad Hallany, and Michael Barlow. The review addressed a range of planning and compliance issues across the properties, with notable concerns raised regarding: - **Floodplain compliance** — commissioners examined whether proposed development activity on the relevant parcels met applicable floodplain regulations - **Building heights** — the height of proposed structures was discussed as a point of consideration for at least one of the projects under review The outcomes of the discussion varied across the different development plans presented, reflecting differing levels of readiness or compliance among the projects reviewed. *Note: Additional detail on the specific positions taken by individual speakers, the nature of any motions made, and the precise outcomes for each property are not available in the provided data.* ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 01:41] The Commission took up Agenda Item 3, a resolution concerning performance bonds and letters of credit for various projects. Key speakers on this item were William Wilson and Frank Penn. The resolution was presented to the Commission for consideration and approval. The structured record does not detail specific concerns raised or extensive debate during the discussion of this item. The Commission approved the resolution authorizing performance bonds and letters of credit for the various projects as presented. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of December 12, 2024 minutes - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-MJDP-25-00001** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of GDK Farm, LLC (Turner Property) - **PLN-MJDP-25-00003** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Sikura Justice Property, Unit 6 - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00011** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association, Lots 4 & 5 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00056** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Red Mile Mixed-Use Development - **PLN-MJDP-24-00096** — withdrawn (7-0): Withdrawal of Ramsey Sullivan Property, Unit 3, Lot 1 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00099** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Givens Property, Outlot 7 (7Brew) - **PLN-MJDP-24-00100** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Hamburg East, Lot 4-C (Firebirds Wood Fired Grill) - **PLN-MJDP-24-00097** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 4 - **PLN-MJDP-25-00002** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Givens Property, Outlot 6 (Wendy’s) - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of consent agenda - **PLN-MJDP-24-00100** — postponed (7-0): Continuance of Distillery District- West Unit 1 - **PLN-MJDP-25-00005** — passed (7-0): Approval of Denton Farms, Unit 2, Lot 1 - **PLN-MJDP-25-00005** — passed (7-0): Approval of EAMP compliance statement for Denton Farms, Unit 2 --- ## Full transcript 30, February 13, 2025. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Before we get to the agenda, we do have an infamous person we would like to bring up on the board there. We're going to slide them up. Infamous, famous, I don't know. We've got Mr. Bill Wilson there being categorized as, uh, hey, I don't know if you look like Will Smith, but I guess it's the 20 years after. Don't worry about that. Don't worry. Yes, it is official. But Bill, we appreciate you being here and I know you could have been spending time with us in Lexington. So let's move down the agenda here. I'd like to get the approval of minutes first. So the floor is open for the approval of minutes. And those are from the December 12, 2024. Okay, Ms. Wirth. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the December 12, 2024 minutes as submitted. Thank you. We have a second by Mr. Wilson. Any discussions to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Next, I want to move down a little bit on the agenda. I'd like to take up page 11, performance bonds and letter of credit. Agenda item 3. I'd like to move that up and get a motion for approval for that. So the floor is open. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the performance bonds and letters of credit. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Penn. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we'll move on to agenda item 3 on the front page, postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Zach Cato of Billings Law Firm. I have a postponement on page 8, item J. It's PLN MJDP 25-1, GDK Farm. We have a recommendation of approval from TRC and from the subdivision subcommittee. We were notified by staff yesterday afternoon that there is an additional condition or requirement that we need to look at. So in light of that, we request a one-month postponement so we have time to evaluate that and come back with a clean recommendation. Okay, and that's March 13th. That's correct. Okay, thank you, sir. We bring it back to Commission for a motion. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 25-1 to the March 13th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Let's vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, Dick Murphy on page 9, item L, PLN MJDP 25-3, Sakura Justice Property, Unit 6, Polo Club Center, Lot 1, amended. Located at 2945 Polo Club Lane. I represent the owner. We're requesting a postponement. They recently brought me on to get the comprehensive plan compliance statement and infrastructure statement done. We're doing those, but we need some more time for doing that. If it's possible, we'd like to request a two-week postponement to February 27th. Okay, thank you, Mr. Murphy. I bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I'll move for a postponement of PLN MJDP 25-3, Sakura Justice Property, and until February 27, 2025. Thank you. We got a second by Ms. Wirth. Let's vote via Granicus. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jihad Hallani with Vision Engineering. On page 2, item number 1, under final subdivision plan A, we'd like to request postponement for 30 days. We're still working with the staff on the lot coverage and the corner lot. You said page 1? Yes, sir. Page 2. Page 2, item 1. Okay, sorry. Page 2, item 1, final PLN MJSUB 24-11. Correct. Okay, okay. Thank you. Sir. All right. It's one month postponement? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of PLN MJSUB 24-11, Hoover and Ford-Philpot, Evangelistic Association, until March 13, 2025. Second. Thank you. We got a motion and a second by Mr. Wilson. Let's vote via Granicus. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, also on page 4. Oh, the second one. We still got a vote on it yet. Appreciate you, though. All right. Now, that one passes. Thank you. Yes, sir. On page 4, item D, for the Red Mile mixed-use development, we request postponement for two weeks. We are working on mitigation plan for three, so we're still working with Urban Forester on this one. All right. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll move for postponement of PLN MJDP 24-56, Red Mile mixed-use development, until February 26. 22nd. Thank you, sir. We have a second. Second by Mr. Penn. Thank you. Let's vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. And also, Mr. Chairman, on page 5, item number D, PLN major development plan 24-96 for the Ramsey property, we are requesting withdrawal of that application. Withdrawing? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we have a request for withdrawal of that application. The floor is open. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for withdrawal of PLN MJDP 24-96, as requested by the applicant. Thank you. And we have a second. Ms. Boxdale, that was you, right? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And on page 6, please, item number H, for major development plan 24-99, for the 7 Brewer lot, outlot number 7, we are asking postponement for 30 days. Okay. Thank you. So, you got a one-month recommendation for a postponement. So, the floor is open for that motion. Ms. Boxdale. Yes, Mr. Chair, I move to postpone, let's see, I lost it. Okay. H, PLN MJDP 24-99 until our March 13th meeting. Thank you. We have a second. Seconded by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes. And the last one, page 7, item I, PLN, and major development plan for the Hamburg East lot 4C, we are asking two weeks of postponement. Two weeks. Okay. Okay. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement for PLN MJDP 24-100 Hamburg East lot 4C for two weeks. Okay. Thank you. We have a second. Seconded by Ms. Boxdale. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. Thank you. You pretty much took our whole agenda. I mean, you need to come back. Okay. Staff. Yes, we do have one request. Cheryl, do you know what page it's on? Sorry. First one's on page 5. Page 5, PLN MJDP 24-97 for the Park Hill Shopping Center lot 4. The applicant requested a one-month postponement. They actually have not been to the subdivision committee for a full discussion, so we'll expect that to be discussed at subdivision committee in March and then them to be available March 13th for the public meeting. Okay. Is there anything additional? Awesome. Okay. I was just making sure there was nothing additional to that. Okay. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Penn. Yes. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 24-97 to the March 13th meeting. Thank you. We have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. It looks like... Yeah, so we'll do a raise of hands to keep it moving. All right. There you go. Thank you. All right. That motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Okay. This is a really unusual amount of postponements, and I don't understand how we can have one agenda with this many postponements. So I'm not looking for answers here publicly, but I think there's something wrong when you have this many postponements at one meeting. This is about as much as I've ever seen. Yeah, that's what I just said. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Yeah, we still got some more. We got one more. Okay. If you want to turn to page 8, at the bottom of page 8, item K, PLN MJDP 25-2, Givens Property, Outlet 6, Wendy's Amendment. They requested a one-month postponement so that they can continue to work on the layout for their structure on the property. Okay. We got a recommendation for a one-month postponement. Mr. Wilson. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of PLN MJDP 25-2, the Givens Property. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Boxdale. All right. Then we can vote via granicus. Mr. Frank, you got it. Hey, Frank. It's fine. That motion passes unanimously. Okay. Ms. Wade. I think at this point we can move on to the consent agenda, if that's- Okay. And the good news is we have four items on the consent agenda today. So I'll ask if anyone is present about any of these four items in the audience, or if the commission wants to pull any of these four cases for a full presentation. So let me read those. And if you are here to have an item discussed, if you'll raise your hand. So the first item is a final development plan that's being requested for reapproval. It appears on page two of our agenda. Item 2A, PLN MJDP 20-73 for Liberty Road Service Center. And that's for property located at 1833, 1837, and 1865 Liberty Road. Is there anyone here for that item? The next item is directly below that. Also on page two, item B under development plans. And again, this is also a reapproval request. PLN MJDP 23-79 for the Lail property. And that's for property located at 1551 Greendale Road. So anyone present for that item today? Okay. And then two newer cases. The first one appears on page six of the agenda. Item G, PLN MJDP 24-94 for the Aylesford subdivision, also known as the Holy Spirit Newman Center. This is an amended final development plan, I believe, or a final development plan, for property located at 320 Rose Street. Is there anyone who wishes to have this item heard? Okay. And then the last item is on page 10 of the agenda. Item M for PLN MJDP 25-4, the Great House property, the also known as the Village at Great Acres for lot two. And that property address is 2709 Ruby River Drive. Is there anyone present for that item? Okay. So those four items qualified for the consent agenda, and the commission can take action collectively on those. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Wade. The floor is open for a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented by staff. Yes, sir. Thank you, and we have a second by Ms. Wirth. There are not any further discussions. Please vote via granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, let's put this on page three. Okay. PLN MJDP 24-10, Distillery District. And we also have revised staff recommendations on the yellow sheet. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Chris Chaney, Planning Services. The plan before you, MJDP 24-10, Distillery District, West Unit 1, amended, located at 1158 through 1170 and 1186 through 1228. Even only addresses Manchester Street. The purpose of this plan is to add a 4,500 square foot building on 1158 Manchester Street, and revise the use of building on 1170 Manchester Street. Property is zoned I-2. It is an adaptive reuse project. The plan has 13 standard sign-offs. And then we have additionally some cleanup stuff, correct spelling and required parking calculations table, correct numbering and general notes, clarify proposed retail use in the new building. And then we've amended and added a note to edit note number 16 on the plan to the approval of the Division of Engineering. And then two discussion items, discuss outdoor storage restrictions of Article 19 of the zoning ordinance, specifically 19-7B. And that addresses, well, 19-7 is standards applicable to all special flood hazard areas and post-development floodplains. And item B is permitted activities. And that states the following uses having low obstructive effect shall be permitted in the floodplain to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other ordinance and provided that they do not require grading, filling, structures, storage of materials and equipment, or any other obstructive features. And then the final discussion item is discuss proposed compliance with new construction requirements of Article 19 of the zoning ordinance. So on this, on the image you have here, you can see town branches located on the bottom part of the plan. The limit of the floodway is this line here that kind of goes through the middle of the property. And then the remainder of the property to the top of this image is in the floodplain outside of the floodway. The proposed retail structure is this building here. And the applicants are proposing to fill, to raise that above the base flood elevation. And then there's some associated parking with the use. And make sure I'm not missing anything. And then that's kind of, that's kind of it. I'll open it up if you all have questions or comments for me. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff in a moment? Yes, Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris, maybe we're going to get into it. Number 18, discuss outdoor storage restrictions. Yes. Seems like the major discussion has been storage, parking of trucks and trailers there overnight. Correct. The applicant has indicated that it's going to be a U-Haul rental location. And I think specifically the angled parking is intended for the parking of the U-Haul trucks and trailers. And that's, according to section 19, that's prohibited in the floodplain. Prohibited. Yeah, the storage of materials and equipment. So that's still up for discussion, I guess. Correct. Okay. All right, thank you. Chris, I don't see any more questions at the moment. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, this is Jihad Halland with Vision Engineering. So the plan here is basically to construct approximately 4,500 square feet building that's going to be elevated above the floodplain. And then also the parking of U-Haul trucks that's going to be parked on site. And sometimes these trucks are going to be staying overnight. And the way we are approaching this is we're proposing to have a guardrail to be located along the edge of the parking lot so that during any flood event, so if any car can get moved or something like that, it will be contained on site through the guardrail. And we are proposing this plan, assuming the planning commission approve it today. So we have multiple steps that we need to go forward. Number one is that we have to go to FEMA requesting an amendment of the FEMA map through a process or a CLOMR. And then also we have to come back and apply for a special use permit. And then that special use permit is going to lead us to the floodplain appeal committee meeting to address the storage that's going to be on site, which is the truck, and also the location of the building where it has been positioned, and also the work in the floodway and floodplain with the parking lot of the U-Haul. As you guys know, this building has been there for many years. That parking lot is there. And so we have to make some adjustment through the floodplain by raising the building and doing some parking lot, striping the parking lot. We did the drainage study, and we submitted to engineering. And engineering told us they feel comfortable to move forward with this plan to the planning commission. Assuming the planning commission approve that layout, then we have a lot of work need to be done with FEMA and the floodplain appeal committee. And if that use is not going to be permitted, or the planning commission, I'm sorry, if the planning commission does not approve it, no sense to go to FEMA and do all this work for the owner because this has no benefit for them because there's a lot of work need to be done from the time the planning commission approves this layout. And the way we are approaching the storage unit, as I mentioned, we're planning to have a guardrail on site. And then this guardrail will be designed in a way it has enough strength to hold anything on site from being washed away from the property. So, and if there's any question, and we are in agreement with the staff on every other comments. Thank you, sir. Do we have any comments or questions? Mr. Penn? I am startled to say the least that we're going to put a guardrail up to keep the stuff from washing in the creek instead of trying to keep the creek from getting in the parking lot. Well, I mean, we don't think it's going to happen, but this is some of the concern that the staff presented, assuming there's something that's going to get washed out. The depths of the floodplain is going to be, it's not going to be that high on the parking lot. In the parking lot, but just to address the concern related to the storage overnight, we made that, we suggested that one as a safety precaution. So do you have an estimate of if it floods, how deep the water would be? Yes, sir. The water is going to be at the buildings. The building is going to be two feet above the floodplain. The parking lot is going to range from the area close to the floodplain from, I'm going by memory, close to two and a half, three feet max. And then it get outside the property limit is going to be close to a few inches. Three feet is your maximum? Maximum, yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Nickel. That was a good observation by Mr. Penn. Have you considered the possibility of improving the bank of the stream in a way that would be beneficial to the stream and solve your problem of potential flooding that would flood into your property? Yes, sir. That's a good question. I mean, the amount of flows that basically coming into town branch before we did the study in 2015, I believe, as part of the city improvement along Manchester Street, and we lowered the floodplain in that area more than three feet. But given the fact there's some bridges downstream from us along Manchester Street, kind of creating some funneling the flow and creating like kind of bottleneck, it's kind of creating a backup into this property. So getting this property outside the floodplain, it require raising the parking lot, which lead into impacting the property upstream from us and then the chain effect. And what we are proposing here, it will have zero impact on anybody upstream from us. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Maybe I ought to wait till you turn it back to commission. But to me, granting something that allows just put up a guardrail instead of mitigating the water problem is just a cheap way to do it. Well, sir, I mean. It doesn't solve anything. Now it's, sir, it is a parking lot already right now. And some cars stay over there. And some cars stay overnight. So what we are doing, I don't think it's much different than what's the operation of it right now. And to address the concern, if it was not the U-Haul, for example, if it was any other commercial building, they would have a customer coming in and leaving, and there's no trucks or car left overnight. But people are parking overnight. Nobody is stopping them. So the matter is that the use here is a U-Haul. So sometimes they have to leave truck overnight. That led that you cannot have car parked overnight in the floodplain. Then we said, OK, we don't think it's an issue. Otherwise, we don't propose that. We don't propose to have trucks to stay overnight. But to kind of ease the mind of the staff, we suggested the guardrail. So basically, that's what it is. Do we have any other questions for the applicant at this moment? Thank you, Mr. Knight. Thank you. This is time for citizen comments. And I see Ms. Amy Clark. Thank you. Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road. And I think probably Mr. Penn knows as well as anyone that this is the Town Branch Watershed. It's my watershed. And it's perhaps the most challenged over the years in Lexington, in Fayette County. You've got a steep stream bank and the parking lot. And I gather this is a post-development floodplain. They're proposing very substantial fill to create this parking lot at a level that can meet requirements. And then they're planning to elevate the building, I heard, three further feet. When you look at a development plan, as you know, one of the things you do is look at its boundaries and its improvements. And this is very substantial fill. And there isn't any approval yet of the measures they propose. And it seems to me premature to grant approval on condition that a rather great number of things still have expert advice wanting. I urge that you postpone, you have until the 1st of April, to make a decision on this one. And I hope that they can do a little better. I am not keen on a guardrail, however mighty it may be, to prevent trucks which are not permitted to be stored in a floodplain, to prevent them from washing away or there's also trucks, they have exhaust and they tend to contaminate a parking lot some. And I'm sure that the engineering is considering taking care of that. I don't believe that you have a demonstration that this is approvable yet. A demonstration that this is approvable yet. And there's a lot of advice missing. I also wonder, I know that you can't have barriers to a flood if they're crossways to the flood, perpendicular. This looks like the flood would go alongside, but a guardrail just doesn't look very happy to me. And actually every wheel of any truck would also be a barrier to free movement of the flood. Notice if you can put the map back up, the floodway runs right along the edge of the building practically. It's only maybe, what, 10 feet away? And that's where the current must move as it's draining off the flood during a flood. That doesn't look very good either. It looks as though they've just maxed out both the paving and, well, a building. And there's a lot of fill here. It seems like an extraordinary quantity of fill without having either the FEMA saying, yes, this post-development flood plain boundary. That's to say the new boundary of the land on which they're developing. They don't have the approval of that yet, the conditional approval, as well as not having any, I'm not hearing any advice yet from the staff that it will have to go and get an appeal from the flood plain committee because that storage in the flood plain is not allowed. Why make that a condition instead of saying this one is just not approvable as it stands? Please improve it. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Clark. My name is Zina Merkin, 120 Victory Avenue. And this just came to my attention a couple of days ago. And I do have some questions. One, fill is generally just not allowed in the flood plain. It's not the preferred way. And two, water goes somewhere. If we fill part of the flood plain, the water has to go somewhere else. If you build a wall, it goes upstream or downstream, but it has to be accounted for. It has impacts other places. I'm particularly concerned with the historic buildings that are already on the site and where pushing the water around, how that will affect them. And the existing businesses in this thriving business district, we certainly don't want to damage their capacity. We don't want them to incur damages from this. So I would say that also the guardrail, I'm looking at the plan. I sample the water quality right behind the break room. I'm pretty familiar with that stream bank, which is eroding. It's unstable. They have the parking drive right on top of, even almost over the edge part of the way on that bank. I don't think that's particularly safe. I think it's putting a lot of pressure on a stream bank that already has some issues. So I think less lot coverage, and without knowing how much fill they're planning to put on there, I don't know how you can even judge what kind of other impacts there are. I think we need more information. So thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay. All right. Staff, do you have anything? Anything additional? I guess I would just add that one of the conditions the staff recommended changing was number 17. So the applicant put a new note on the plan relative to what that condition originally said. So they acknowledged that they do need to go to the Floodplain Appeals Committee. But the language of that note wasn't quite right. So we're just asking them to work with the Division of Engineering to get the note correct. At this point, the commission is accepting their plan, knowing that the next steps have to be accomplished before they could ever construct this. So that includes fill in the floodplain, constructing a structure in the floodplain, putting up a guardrail, which is in the floodway. And then the fourth thing is the storage of equipment, is what I would call the trucks and trailers as equipment at this point. Because they're staying for more than a 24-hour period is our anticipation, or there's no way to really know for the staff or the city that those trailers are moving on a daily basis. So we, I think, have to assume they aren't, at least not all of them. So those four things have to be considered by the Floodplain Appeals Committee, which Ms. Barksdale is a member of. So there's that review process. And they would have to accept the information from the applicant and that no impact would occur to the floodplain and that those changes were okay. So I think what they're asking for at this point is to be able to move on to that next stage and be evaluated against the Article 19 requirements and FEMA requirements. And some of those things the Floodplain Appeals Committee may say no to. Yes, ma'am. So we had this occur in the subdivision committee, the other, I think, in more than one plan, if I recall correctly. I'm looking at the sequence of events in which things are occurring. And I would say as a planning commission member, it would make more sense to me to get this after that committee has viewed this and signed off on it. Is there a reason it's done in this particular sequence? Yes. The Division of Engineering has to sign off on Mr. Helani's request for a clomer. They won't sign off on that if there is not a development plan. So in essence, they have to say, here's what my proposal is, at least on a site plan basis. Engineering can sign off on them moving forward with step one. They do the engineering calculations and more precise improvement plans. They submit that to FEMA. Then they come back to engineering and say, okay, now we're ready for a special use permit. And our county engineer, Mr. Burton, says, he always says no. I mean, we have a process. So the no then gets them in line to go to the floodplain appeals committee. And that group evaluates those details. Then we can come back and put whatever conditions are required by that committee on a development plan. Usually that would be a minor amendment. They could just add a note to what those are. So at that point, is there still the possibility that it could be rejected? By the floodplain appeals committee? Yes. Okay. So the real issue is you can't get there from here. In other words, you got to get the development plan first before the downstream things happen. Yes. Question is worth. Advocate, do you have anything additional? No, sir. We are in agreement with staff 100%. And that's how we like to proceed. There's no reason for us to do all this extra work and additional work for the client. If the planning commission is going to tell us no. I mean, we just need the green light to move forward. We understand we have a lot of things has to be done before we can get land disturbance permit. And get the plan certified. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Penn. I know you had a. Hold on, Mr. Clark. You want to. Yes, you can step on up. Come on. I want to urge the commission that the primary responsibility and the prior responsibility for deciding whether the development is approvable for rendering a decision of approval. This belongs to the planning commission. If you don't hear, say, either postpone it and make it better or disapprove. It is out of your hands whether the flood plain appeals committee grants an override essentially of the zoning ordinance. In article 19, this kind of storage is not permitted in the flood plain. So if you're saying this plan complies with the zoning ordinance or it doesn't as presented. You can't say that it complies. There's also very substantial fill. It's not just a trifle. It is a lot of work and costly work for the applicant. But enough of that work needs to be before you to say, yeah, this is going to fly. This is approvable. I don't think it meets that standard. And I encourage you really to just ask for better or deny it. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Okay. I'll bring it back to the commission right now. Close this portion out for any further discussions or comments. Ms. Worth. Okay. Mr. Penn. I will. I understand what Ms. Wade is saying about which should come first, the chicken or the egg. But what I don't understand is how we can approve a guard rail as a catch basin. Trailers float. Trucks might not float, but trailers float. And every one of those trailers, as she most adequately said, doesn't go out every day and come back the next morning. They're going to be there and be there and be there. So if this thing floods, you can bet there's trailers there and it doesn't take much water to float a trailer. There's no weight on it. It's just it floats. And so we're going to approve a guardrail to catch trailers that may or may not float into the creek. I just don't think that's good planning. I just think we're at a stage of life right now where Ms. Clark makes good points, but I'm just flabbergasted that we're going to approve a guardrail when we don't have a clomer and we don't have an engineering thing. And it's just to catch trailers. And that's just a bad precedent. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Mr. Wilson. Yes, I'd like to ask the staff to respond to Mr. Penn's point. Okay. Mr. Wade. Thank you. At this point, I think perhaps the Division of Engineering would be better in a better position to respond to really more specific questions about what's permitted in the floodplain and what that process looks like in terms of going to the Floodplain Appeals Committee. So if either Vaughn or Josh would come up, that'd be helpful. Hi, Josh Desarn, Division of Engineering. Could you restate the question? Mr. Penn had the question. And I just referred it. Yeah. The question about the guardrail and the feasibility of it. I believe that would be the chief reason this would go to the Floodplain Appeals Committee. It's not something that would comply with Article 19. So that would prohibit us from issuing a special use permit. Okay. So it doesn't matter that the ordinance prevents storage there and that the guardrails to catch the trailers, and that's good planning? No, it doesn't meet Article 19. That's why it would not be possible for engineering to issue a special use permit based off that design. It would need to go through an appeals process. Okay. I'm not arguing with that. That's how I interpret it. I don't want to argue with anybody. I just common sense. And I believe it was just a proposal. It's not an official design submittal. It was a proposed idea. So they could come back with a different idea or a different location for the trailers outside of the floodway. Possibly. Okay. All right. Mr. Owens. You had anything? Well, it's not yet. Hold on. Not yet. If we ask you a question, we'll get to you. Listening to this, one, I've got to concur with Mr. Penn. And two, with what Josh just said, it kind of seems like we're putting the cart before the horse. And with the fact that he just said possibly the guardrail, it sounds like, is just a proposal. And possibly they'd come back with something different. I'm offering that they need to come back with something different. I'm just not comfortable moving this myself, moving this thing forward. So whoops. Was I on? Yeah, yeah. We heard you. Clear. You're good to go. Yes, sir. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. There's not any further questions. I mean, floor is open for a motion then. Mr. Chair, let me offer something. Yep. You know, I see this as two options. And the more favorable option for the applicant right now would be a continuance of this to let them continue working on this, if they can come up with a better idea, better way. So my motion would be for continuance of Plan MJDP 24-10, Distillery District West, for one month, March 27th, I believe it is, 2025. Currently with the 19 commissions. The 13th, March 13th? 13th, I'm sorry. Continuance for March 13th. I could go to the end of March to tell you the truth, give them as much time as possible. Your call. We'll go with 13th at this point. Okay. All right. So we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second. Okay. We have a second by Ms. Worth. Do we have further discussions to that motion? Okay. Hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay. That motion passes, Mr. Wilson, unanimously. All righty. Okay. So that put us on page 10, PLN MJDP 25-5, Denton's Farm. And we do have revised staff recommendations here in the purple sheet. Okay. This is, good afternoon. Okay. Good afternoon. This is PLN MJDP 25-5, Denton Farms, Unit 2, Lot 1. Denton Farms is located out Richmond Road. This is old Richmond Road going up here to continue on the reservoirs over on this side. Denton Farms came in, was rezoned back in 2003. They had a list of conditional zoning restrictions on it. One of the conditional zoning restrictions was they could have a maximum of 495 dwelling units. We are now at the last 95 dwelling units being built on this property. They originally had apartments, condo, this was all gonna be apartments and condo units. Now they've come back and they are removing several of the apartment buildings and putting in 34 townhomes. They're gonna have a total of 61 condo apartments and 34 townhomes in this area. After reviewing this, we have our standard list of conditions. We had a discussion yesterday and after reviewing we had, there was a couple conditional zoning restrictions that were, at this time we thought we needed to have a little more attention to. One of them was to emergency access. We've talked about this before. Having a second access point into a piece of property for emergency services. Currently, they have one access point in and out of this property and there was to propose to be a second access point for fire and emergency to be located up in this area here. So condition number 20, it says denote no building permits for the new proposed area, unit two, lot one, shall be issued until an emergency access is constructed at indicated location along the long road. Such emergency access shall meet the requirements of the division of fire, emergency services, and traffic engineering. We would like to see this completed before construction starts on the new phase. As I said, there was several conditional zoning restrictions on this. Another one was to, along the long road here, we have Judmont Farm over in this location here. One of the other conditional zoning restriction that we thought we needed to have a little more attention to was, there was a certain hedge fence line that was proposed along the long road. And so we've created a note that says, denote no building permits for unit two, lot one. Shall be issued until the hedge fence along the long road to replicate what is across the long road at Judmont Farm per conditional zoning E. So we'd like to see that completed. So these are two notes that were added after the subdivision committee meeting. And we felt that these were of importance that needed to be met. With that, I open to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Okay. Do we have any comments for Ms. Gout right now? Ms. Gout. Oh, okay. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Cheryl, looking at the plan, you mentioned emergency access on the long road, which I can understand. Quite frankly, I'd hate to meet a firetruck on the long road myself. But looking at the development plan down at the bottom, there's an arrow and I believe it does mention possibility of emergency access there. Down on Richmond? What's happened to that possibility? Well, the state is coming through and doing a lot of improvements on Richmond Road and part of the improvements is they are closing Old Richmond Road in that section. Old Richmond Road will be closed up at Aphids, am I pronouncing it right? Aphids. So where Old Richmond Road will then, where it connects at Aphids, will bring it around down to Richmond Road at the light. So that section right there of Old Richmond Road will be closed by the state. And we don't know that that's a good location to try to get in when the state's making the changes. Thank you. I had to ask. Okay. Also, there's a memorandum because this is in the expansion area, so they do meet the infrastructure and compliance on this. Any other comments? Yes, Ms. Wirth. Just a question about the last note about the hedge fence along Long Road. I know when Mr. Barrett spoke, he talked about a lot of what was there was shrub honeysuckle and other things that we're trying to get rid of in Fayette County. Is this proposing to keep that? No. This is getting rid of all of that and replacing it with the fence line that looks like Judmont right across the street. I don't know what that looks like. It's got a fence and then a hedge row and then another fence. A real hedge, not scrub. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Applicant. Good afternoon, Commission members. I'm Michael Barlow, representing the applicant. We are agreeable to those two additional staff recommendations that we have to get these determined before we can start construction. We have actually met with the fire department last week to figure out how best to, how they would like to access the property in case of an emergency as well. Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you, Mr. Barlow. Thank you. You're welcome. Citizen comments. If you want to speak on this particular application, you can do so by stepping up to the podium. Yes, sir. How are you doing? Good afternoon. David Osborne, 485 Weston Park in Ellerslie. As the staff said, when this section of the development is complete, the development will be complete with 495 homes, 341 single family homes, 93 townhomes, and 61 condos. These will be the only condos in Ellerslie, and they'll represent 12% of the community. I put a slide pack in front of each one of you. I'd like to start out this one here. The yellow section that you see is specifically, I'm talking about Building 3 in the condominium. This condominium sits at the highest elevation in this part of the community. You'll see there by the contour lines that this sits higher than any other part of the community. As evidence, just behind this is the community fountain where the developer put the fountain there at the intersection at Ellerslie Park Boulevard and Tatton Road. On the next slide, I'd like to show you. It shows that you're overlooking Tatton Park in this one, and you can see the high ground where Building 3 will go of the condominiums. To the left is the roundabout and the fountain that are at the intersection of Ellerslie Park Boulevard and Tatton. Please take note in the center, you'll see a street sign that the HOA put in there last year. That will come back into play a little bit later in this presentation. Next slide, please. To the left, you'll see the community fountain. In the center is the location of Building 3. And to the right side of the street sign, to the far right, you'll see a tree line that will be the future location of Building 1. Please note the yellow tab on the street sign. The bottom of that yellow tab is a yield sign. That represents eight feet above the sidewalk level. The top of that yellow tab is the finial that is on the top of that street sign, which is 13 feet, three feet, or three inches high. Next slide. This picture was taken from the same location, except at a 45 degree angle from where I was standing. The purpose of this is to show you the single family homes that will be facing Building 3. As Tracy noted last week, the condo buildings cannot exceed 35 feet. However, placing a building of that size on the high ground in this area will dwarf the single family homes that you see and drastically change the landscape of that area. Next slide, please. Please note in the upper left of this picture, that's the eave. I'm standing on the back porch. That's the eave of the single family home that's directly across from Building 3. If you use that yellow tab as being the difference between eight feet and 13 feet and then go up, those dotted lines would represent the size of Building 3 in proportion to that single family home sitting there. My ask is pretty simple, is that the commission direct that the elevation, the height of the building number three be brought down to not higher than the peaks of the single family homes in the surrounding area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak? Okay. Okay. Fine. Applicant? We intend to comply with the maximum allowable building height for EAR1 zoning. It wouldn't be feasible to fit the required units in there to be the same height as a single family home. Okay. That's 35 feet? 35 feet, correct. Okay. All right. Mr. Newcomb, do you have anything? Yeah, I just want to put on the record that they are complying with their current zoning ordinance as the structure is less than 35 feet. So it's in the ordinance, and they are complying with the ordinance. All right. Thank you. Mr. Owens? Mr. Barlow, let me ask you this. From what I heard, the request, they kind of understand 35 feet, but the request was to lessen, I guess, what I would say is the start where the ground is. Can that be lowered any to make that 35 feet less obvious? It potentially could be. We'd have to make sure the grade changes would work for the internal roads. You know, we'd have to make sure it would comply with all engineering requirements to do that. The intention is not to build it up and make it extra high from the road. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Penn? Mr. Barlow, what we see on this picture, this berm-type picture, is that the natural elevation, or have you all put dirt in there to start with? Do you remember? That was probably, dirt was probably moved about 20 years ago, I've had to guess. Assume it's probably left over from building the boulevard within there, but I can't speak to that. I mean, I don't know that it matters. I'm just talking about, you know, one thing's a natural situation, the other's a creative situation. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barlow. Thank you all. Anything additional from staff? Everybody's good? Good. Okay. All right. We can bring it back to the commission then. Floor is open. Mr. Chair, hold on one second. Since emergency access was needed, and our wonderful fire department's in the back, do they have anything to add? Maybe not. I don't know, but they're back there. I don't see any of you jumping out of your seats. No. He needs his steps. He needs 12 minutes if he's trying to think. Mr. Beatty, how about you? He's got to do this. I've heard it one way, so. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Embry-Beatty, Lexington Fire Department. At this time, we don't have anything else to ask. I will speak briefly back with Mr. Barlow if there's any other further questions or concerns. I will note, though, the existing number of single family units already meet or exceed what the fire code requires. We require two points of access, anything greater than 101 units. So at this point in time, just dealing with the existing subdivision, we will require two points of access. Thank you, Mr. Beatty. All right. Thank you. You called that one, right? Mm-hmm. Owens? Let me ask staff one thing. Going back to the question as far as elevation, is there a possibility of a 20-second condition to look at feasibility? Because it sounds like, well, maybe that's a burn. Maybe it's going to be removed anyway. But look at the feasibility of taking the elevation down on that area. Typically, the Planning Commission doesn't get involved in grading plans and how a site will be physically developed. Yes, in terms of approving square footages and parking areas and so forth. So I would generally be more comfortable with leaving that to Mr. Barlow, since he's a professional engineer. Yeah. Okay. Also, with this new House Bill 443, do we want to be thinking about that? We're not there yet. I know, but we will be. We will be. I mean, I went to the same training you did. Okay. Mr. Nickel, you had something? I was just going to make a motion. The floor is open. Okay, I'm going to recommend a motion for approval of PLN-MJDP-25-5, Denton Farms, with the 21 staff recommendations. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second to that motion. All right, we've got a second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, let's vote via Granicus. Boom. Okay, a motion passes unanimously. Do we have a ticket motion on the EAMP-2? Yes. It's about time. Mr. Nickel? I'd like to make a recommendation for a approval of the EAMP compliance statement, PLN-MJDP-25-5, Denton Farms, Unit 2, AMD. Okay, we've got a second by Mr., well, we give it to Mr., I'm going to give it to Mr. Pinn this time. Okay. And if there are not any discussions further, we can vote via Granicus. You want to raise a hand? Mr. Pinn? Sorry, it was Pinn and Wilson, two old guys. Who now shall be called? As they say, I resemble that remark. Will Smith. Y'all give me a hard time. Okay, vote here via Granicus. All right, a motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Sorry, make sure I think we're good. Mr. Duncan? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to remind you all that our next get-together is Thursday, February 20th for the Planning Commission Work Session. We'll be in the third floor of the Phoenix Building. Look forward to seeing you all there. And a reminder that the government will be closed on Monday, February 17th for President's Day. And we wish you all a very happy Valentine's Day on Friday. Thank you. Mr. Duncan? Go ahead. Mr. Duncan, thank you for that. Mr. Wilson? I would say this to all my colleagues here. If all my colleagues on the commission were stood up in a line, I'd choose each and every one of you to be my Valentine. Is that as Will Smith or is that as Bill Wilson? That might get technical. I think we all refer to him henceforth as Will.