# Planning Commission Subdivision (Sub) Committee - March 6, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · March 6, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6356 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6356?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-03-06 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 27, 2026 - **Length**: 18,713 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 met on March 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room. The committee worked through a agenda of 9 items spanning a range of subdivision and development proposals across Lexington. Over the course of the meeting, 8 motions and votes were taken and 1 public comment was heard. Of the 9 agenda items considered, 5 were approved — including proposals related to Oldham & Columbia Townhomes, Higbee Creek, Highlawn Subdivision, the Rail Yard, and Newtown Springs — while 4 items were postponed, including matters involving Meadowcrest, the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association, and two items related to the Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association properties. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took eight actions during the March 6, 2025 meeting, with all items passing or being postponed unanimously. - **Plan MJDP 24-101, Current Addition Properties** — Mr. Penn moved approval with 24 conditions attached. The motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 32:36] - **PLN MJDP-25-00007, Calgill Partners, Meadowcrest** — Madam Chair moved to postpone the item, with 21 conditions attached. The motion to postpone passed unanimously. [timestamp: 1:04:59] - **MJDP-25-8, Shriners Hospital / Masonic Temple Association of Lexington** — Mr. Penn moved to postpone the item, with a revised set of 22 conditions attached. The motion to postpone passed unanimously. [timestamp: 1:31:08] - **PLN MJDP250009, South Lexington Development Company, Windale Development** — Madam Chair moved approval with 14 conditions attached. The motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 1:43:02] - **PLN MJDP 2510, Highlawn Subdivision** — Madam Chairman moved approval with 6 conditions attached. The motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 1:46:24] - **PLN MJDP 25-00011** — Madam Chair moved approval with a revised set of 14 conditions attached. The motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 1:56:52] - **PLN MJ SUB 2411 and PLN MJ DB 2474** — Madam Chair moved to postpone both items to April 3rd. The motion to postpone passed unanimously. No conditions were attached. [timestamp: 1:59:43] - **PLN MJDP 24-95, Newtown Springs** — Madam Chair moved approval with revised conditions attached, seconded by Mr. Penn. The motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 2:07:50] No roll call votes were recorded; all actions were decided by unanimous consent. Mr. Penn and Madam Chair were the primary movers throughout the meeting. Second motions were recorded only for the final item, PLN MJDP 24-95. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period. [timestamp: 06:13] - **Amy Clark** spoke regarding the Current Addition Properties plan, raising several concerns about the proposal as presented. Specifically, Clark questioned the design of the vehicle use area and noted what she described as a lack of green space in the plan. She requested that the item be postponed to allow for improvements to be made to the proposal before moving forward. No other public comments were recorded during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items Three items on the March 6, 2025 Commission agenda generated disagreement or unresolved procedural concerns, resulting in postponement recommendations for each. - **Current Addition Properties plan:** Community member Amy Clark raised concerns about whether the plan complied with applicable zoning ordinances. Clark requested that the item be postponed to allow time for improvements to be made to the plan before the Commission took action. - **Cowgill Partners, LP Properties (Meadowcrest):** This item was the subject of a procedural dispute centered on unresolved issues related to street cross-sections and access. Because these technical matters had not been satisfactorily addressed, the item was recommended for postponement rather than approval. - **Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington, Lots 3 & 4:** Concerns were raised regarding lot coverage and access easements associated with this proposal. As with the Meadowcrest item, the outstanding issues were not resolved at the time of the meeting, and the item was recommended for postponement pending further review. In all three cases, the contested matters were not resolved during the meeting, and postponement was the recommended course of action to allow the relevant issues to be addressed before the Commission proceeds. ## Current Addition Property, Lots 31, & 38-40 (Oldham & Columbia Townhomes) **Agenda Item:** PLN-MJDP-24-00101 [timestamp: 0:00] This agenda item addressed a major development plan for the Current Addition Property, encompassing Lots 31 and 38–40, proposed as the Oldham & Columbia Townhomes project. The plan calls for the development of 13 townhomes, the reconfiguration of 3 lots, and the depiction of shared parking arrangements for the site. Key speakers on this item included **Ramona Fry**, **Ian McComb**, and **Amy Clark**, who participated in the presentation and discussion of the proposal. The committee had previously reviewed the application and recommended approval subject to **24 conditions**, which were carried forward as part of the Commission's consideration. The structured data does not detail the specific conditions or any individual concerns raised during the floor discussion, but the item was brought before the Commission as a discussion item with a prior committee recommendation in hand. The Commission ultimately **approved** the proposal. ## Cowgill Partners, LP Properties (Meadowcrest) [timestamp: 32:36] The Commission took up agenda item **PLN-MJDP-25-00007**, a major development plan application for the **Cowgill Partners, LP Properties**, known as the **Meadowcrest** project. The proposal seeks to revise the layout on **Lots 1 & 2** for a planned mixed-use development incorporating both office and residential uses. **Brandon Gross** was the key speaker on this item. The discussion centered on the proposed layout revisions and the outstanding issues associated with the project. - The application involves changes to the site configuration for Lots 1 & 2 within the Meadowcrest development. - The project is characterized as a mixed-use development combining office and residential components. - Unresolved issues were identified as a significant obstacle to moving the application forward at this time. Following review, the committee had previously recommended **postponement** of the item due to these unresolved concerns, and the Commission acted in accordance with that recommendation. The item was **postponed**, with the expectation that the outstanding issues would need to be addressed before the application could return for further consideration. No additional details regarding the specific nature of the unresolved issues are available from the meeting record at this time. ## Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington, Lots 3 & 4 **Case No. PLN-MJDP-25-00008** [timestamp: 1:04:59] The Commission took up this discussion item concerning a proposed amendment for Lots 3 & 4 associated with the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington. The amendment sought to designate Syringa Drive as a private access easement and to revise the existing building and parking layouts on the subject lots. Fred Easteridge was identified as a key speaker in connection with this agenda item. The item did not advance to approval at this meeting. The committee had previously recommended postponement due to unresolved issues with the proposal, and the Commission followed that recommendation. The case was postponed pending resolution of the outstanding concerns. ## South Lexington Development Co, Inc (Wynndale Development, LLC) (Higbee Creek) Lot 5 **Agenda Item:** PLN-MJDP-25-00009 | [timestamp: 1:31:08] The Commission took up this agenda item concerning a major development plan amendment for Lot 5 of the Higbee Creek development, brought forward by South Lexington Development Co, Inc (Wynndale Development, LLC). - **Presenter:** Rory presented the item to the Commission. - **Substance of the Amendment:** The amendment depicts proposed development on Lot 5 of the Higbee Creek project. - **Committee Recommendation:** The committee had previously reviewed the application and recommended approval, subject to **14 conditions**. - **Outcome:** The Commission approved the amendment. No additional concerns, debate points, or dissenting positions are reflected in the available record for this item. The item moved forward consistent with the committee's recommendation. ## Highlawn Subdivision, Block A, Lots 10-12 **Agenda Item:** PLN-MJDP-25-00010 | [timestamp: 1:43:33] The Commission took up this agenda item concerning Highlawn Subdivision, Block A, Lots 10-12, a major development plan that proposes updates to the street cross-section for Bolser Avenue. - **Presenter:** Greg Smorstad led the presentation on this item. - **Scope of the Plan:** The plan focuses on revising the street cross-section design for Bolser Avenue as it relates to the referenced lots within Block A of the Highlawn Subdivision. - **Committee Recommendation:** Prior to the Commission meeting, the item had been reviewed at the committee level, which recommended approval subject to **6 conditions**. - **Outcome:** The Commission approved the item. *Note: The available record does not detail the specific conditions attached to the approval, the nature of any debate or concerns raised during the discussion, or additional context about the proposed street cross-section changes. Readers seeking that detail are encouraged to consult the full meeting transcript beginning at timestamp 1:43:33.* ## Delaware Group & Clay Ingels Company, LLC (Rail Yard) **Case No. PLN-MJDP-25-00011** [timestamp: 1:46:56] The Commission took up a discussion item concerning the Delaware Group & Clay Ingels Company, LLC development known as the Rail Yard project. The plan under consideration incorporates 976 and 1000 Delaware Avenue into an existing adaptive reuse development, expanding the scope of the previously established project. Scott Southall was the key speaker presenting on this agenda item. The proposal involves integrating the two Delaware Avenue properties into the broader adaptive reuse framework already in place for the Rail Yard development. The item came before the Commission following committee review. The committee had recommended approval of the plan subject to a revised set of 14 conditions, reflecting any modifications or additional requirements identified during the committee's evaluation of the expanded development scope. The Commission approved the item in accordance with the committee's recommendation, including the 14 revised conditions attached to the approval. ## Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association, Lots 4 & 5 **Case No. PLN-MJSUB-24-00011** [timestamp: 1:57:36] This agenda item, involving Lots 4 and 5 of the Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association, was brought before the Commission for discussion. Brandon Gross was the key speaker associated with this item. The matter was not fully heard at this meeting. Rather than proceeding with a complete presentation or vote, the item was **postponed to the April 3rd meeting** to allow for further discussions between the applicant and staff. No additional details regarding the nature of those ongoing discussions, any specific concerns raised, or the substance of the proposed subdivision were provided in the record for this meeting. The Commission will take up this item again at its April 3rd session, at which point staff and the applicant are expected to have resolved the outstanding issues that necessitated the delay. ## Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property, Lot 4 (The Fountains of Palomar) **Case No. PLN-MJDP-24-00074** [timestamp: 1:57:36] This agenda item, concerning the Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property, Lot 4 — also known as The Fountains of Palomar — was brought before the Commission as a discussion item. Brandon Gross was identified as the key speaker for this matter. The item did not advance to a full presentation or deliberation at this meeting. Instead, the Commission determined that additional time was needed for further discussions with staff before the matter could be meaningfully considered. As a result, the item was **postponed to the April 3rd meeting**, where it is expected to return following those staff-level conversations. No detailed presentation, debate, or specific concerns were recorded in connection with this item at the March 6, 2025 meeting, given its postponement prior to substantive discussion. ## Newtown Springs, Lot 4 Amended **Agenda Item:** PLN-MJDP-24-95 | [timestamp: 2:00:49] The Commission took up a discussion item concerning an amendment to Lot 4 of the Newtown Springs development. The amendment depicts a restaurant, drive-thru parking, and associated circulation on the outlot. Rory presented the item to the Commission. The committee had previously reviewed the proposal and recommended approval subject to revised conditions. The Commission approved the amendment. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Plan MJDP 24-101, Current Addition Properties with 24 conditions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of PLN MJDP-25-00007, Calgill Partners, Meadowcrest with 21 conditions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of MJDP-25-8, Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple Association of Lexington with revised 22 conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN MJDP250009, South Lexington Development Company, Windale Development with 14 conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN MJDP 2510, Highlawn Subdivision with 6 conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN MJDP 25,00011 with revised 14 conditions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of PLN MJ, SUB 2411 and PLN MJ DB 2474 to April 3rd - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN MJDP 24-95 Newtown Springs with revised conditions --- ## Full transcript We'll get started with the first one. First plan we have, MJDP 24-101, current addition property lots 31 and 38-40 Oldham and Columbia townhomes located at 550, 556, 560 and 568 Columbia Avenue. Purpose of this plan is to develop 13 townhomes, reconfigure 3 lots and depict shared parking. This is Columbia Avenue along the top of the plan, Park Avenue on the right side and Oldham on the left but splits the Unit 1 from Unit 2 and 3. What's depicted appears to be 3 townhome buildings, Unit 1 there, Unit 2 and Unit 3 with shared parking kind of in the inside of an N shape or upside down U. We do have 13 standard sign-offs and then we have denote purpose of plan, correct plan title to match staff report, denote final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan in the title block, depict lotting scheme for adjacent and subject properties for article 5-2D of the land subdivision regulations, to depict property location on the vicinity map, denote right of way widths in cross sections and discuss possible waiver, consolidate all general notes in one group and number accordingly, denote a consolidation plat will be required prior to the issuance of building permits, use the standard site statistics table, provide a lighting plan for article 30 of the zoning ordinance, and discuss purpose of vehicle use area on the south end of Unit 1. And with that I'll open it up for questions, comments. Any questions for staff? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Did you use the pointer before? I did. If you need to you can go forward to the next slide and then point with it. Gotcha, thank you. Good morning everyone. I think that was a good summary of the intent of the project. We did meet. Could you state your name? I'm sorry. My name is Ramona Fry. I'm with Element Design. And coming up to join me is Ian McComb with Joseph and Joseph Architects. So I wanted to both be here to answer any questions. But, you know, as stated, the intent here is 13 new townhome units. A couple of things to note here. All of the units are faced out onto the frontage of the street. And the parking is to the rear of the units. And there is parking provided one space per unit. There will be a couple of edits from this plan based on last week's meeting. We will no longer have a dumpster. We'll do roll carts instead within a screened-in area. We have applied for a waiver on the street geometry. The frontage along Park and Columbia and Oldham, the street sections there, are not standard subdivision street width sections. But we recognize that we need to replace the sidewalks to make the sidewalks all five foot wide to meet those standards. And so the waiver request is to expand those sidewalks. Most of them are around four feet, three-and-a-half to four feet, to expand those sidewalks into the utility strip. The utility strips are nonconforming on all of those streets as well. And so we would then request, as part of that waiver, we would then request as well to do the street trees in the front yard and provide an easement in the front yard of each of the townhomes for the street trees. Okay. What about the vehicle use area? We have discussed the purpose of the vehicle use area at the end of Unit 1. The purpose of that was a driveway for maintenance purposes so that they can park a maintenance vehicle there to service the units. They'll be there frequently and didn't want to take up on-street parking with that, so that's provided as just a driveway for that purpose. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you so much. Oh, did you have a question? Okay. Thank you. All right. Do we have any public comment? Thank you. Do you want us to stay or? No. Good morning. I'm Amy Clark, and I tried to be as organized as I could because I know you have a lot to do and I can't claim all your time. I do have a copy of the cross sections in question. If I could give them to you for reference. Is that permissible? Okay. Okay. I have quite a number of comments. I'm just going to run down them as quickly as I can, and I hope that you'll ask questions if you don't know where I'm coming from on it. The area, the vehicle use area that was in question really isn't a driveway because a driveway leads to a parking area. I don't think it's permissible. I think it will be an enforcement problem. This is a student area. You'll probably have three or four cars in there trying to get in and out. I think it should be removed. I would ask that you not recommend approval with 24 conditions. I would ask that you recommend postponement. I think the plan needs improving. I think there are some serious conflicts in what ordinance it meets and doesn't meet. Many are cleanup conditions, complete this and that, the format and so on, remove the dumpster. The long and the short of it is the plan to me was virtually unreadable, very, very hard to read. Nothing is in the standard shape. In particular, it's hard to notice that there is hardscape through nearly all the area. Can I just take this? Is it better over here? Does it matter? If you could enlarge the actual, can you hear me? Oh. Okay. Thank you, Cheryl. Oh, okay, great. I don't have to take the mic. If you're standing there and you can't see. Got it. Thank you, both of you. That's true. So the top one is enlarged? Okay. All right. So I was talking about the questionable area which is down here. It's sort of a driveway to nowhere. It's neither a parking area that meets any standards nor a driveway. It's possible to get restricted parking on the street permit, parking residential permit, and there can be guest permits that might be an opportunity for a maintenance vehicle. Okay. Hardscape. These are balconies off the end there. There. Okay. And this is all sidewalk, apparently, except for the circles which are trees. All that is sidewalk. Of course, the, you know, vehicle use area is all hardscape as well. So there's rather a lot of it. The main problem I have in general with this is it's an R2 zone, it's a townhouse use, and this is entirely permissible. When you get to the maximum lot area, it differs in R2. For a single family use, it's 5,000 square feet. For a multifamily use, it's 10,000 square feet. So they're saying, well, we're multifamily, and each of the lots are carefully just under 10,000 square feet, the two larger lots. When you get to the open space, they say, well, we're single family, and we have zero open space requirement where I believe for multifamily it is 10% of the lot, and for permissible open space, 10% of it vegetated, and that would be plus or minus. You can combine the two. They can overlap and count double. When you get to parking in Article 16, it's either in single family, you can have a parking court, which is an independent subdivided lot, accessory to or serving. It's a principal use, but it serves the adjoining townhouses. If you have a parking court, it's a maximum of 12 spaces. This has 13. On the other hand, if you regard the development as multifamily, parking is accessory on that lot. I don't think there's any maximum, except it's constrained by other things like having open space. I'm questioning whether you can have an easement to share this accessory parking between two adjoining lots in our two residential lots, and also across the right-of-way. Sorry. Across the right-of-way to the ones lining Oldham Court. There is provision in the zoning ordinance for sharing accessory parking with an adjoining lot, but it's first allowed in R3, and it's allowed for residential sharing with P1 and B lots, except, I think, downtown. So I don't see that you can have an accessory shared lot in this way without going to a group residential where you have one unified lot for the larger lot instead of one cut down the middle. And in that case, you can have several buildings on one lot and shared parking. Then there's a question of how large the lot is, okay? The yards throughout are 3-foot front, 3-foot side, and 10-foot rear or 20% of the depth of the lot, whichever is greater. And what they've done is they've drawn the subdivision line between the two lots. To me, this is highly irregular. I don't think it's really allowed in the subdivision regs. Things are supposed to be, as far as possible, parallel to the street. So here's Park Avenue, here's Oldham. They're sort of not quite parallel themselves. This one cuts at random through the parking area. It's not random at all. What they're trying to do is give the required rear yard for this part and for this part, and at the same time, thread the needle so that neither lot exceeds the 10,000 maximum, if you're calling them multifamily. This is a lot of picky detail, but these are the standards that make it one use or a different use and make the requirements of the zone or fail to. You could do, I would guess, a group residential. In the infill area, you can even do it without getting the perimeter lot. It would be a five-foot front yard. The front yard remains the same. The perimeter lot should be, for a group residential, many residential buildings on one lot, should be a 20-foot collar around the side and rear yards. But in the infill area, you can get along without that if you have no variances. So the subdivision issues, this is a consolidation because there were three lots in the larger area, and now there are only two. So apparently it doesn't require a subdivision plan, and yet it would require a consolidation plan. Is that correct? All right. I am. We'll give you two more minutes, Ms. Clark. Okay. And the other thing I've passed out to you right away is extremely substandard. This is actually a collector street. It's a minor collector. It's a major avenue to the university, and it's thronged with bike ped, multimodal scooters, people jaywalking, reading their cell phone. It's a mess. And it has 40 feet in all instead of the 60 feet that you see on the cross section that I passed out for the right-of-way. I don't think a waiver of the subdivision regulations to expand the sidewalk to a minimum five feet by taking away the distance from curb or the utility strip altogether is warranted. I don't think it's a good idea. There's just too much going on here, and to have pedestrians right at curb edge is a bad idea. All of this comes down to having really the street tree problem. A tree inventory map is due upon application, and it is to have the easements marked. And the application can be held and not forwarded for review until that tree inventory map is complete, and that would mean the easements as well. We've recently seen a property where the absence of electrical easements made a big difference in how you felt about approving the plan. So what we have here is the electrical easements as marked are very confusing. They do not seem to be ‑‑ how do I make it a little bit ‑‑ okay. Oh. I see. Okay. Well, what I will point to is there are overhead power lines that go across the street. Okay. So the point is do we really need electrical lines on this side of the street? It would seem that trees are pretty much precluded. If you have a highly constrained right‑of‑way area, especially if you eliminate the utility strip altogether, you've got a five‑foot front yard, and if there are utility poles along there, whether they're the three‑wire kind or the lighter kind, where are those trees going to go? I would suggest that the parking area can be reduced in size. It doesn't need the dumpster any longer. It has one too many spaces if it's a parking court. If it's single family use, it ought to be a parking court, a subdivided lot. This other parking area, so‑called, should be removed. It might give an opportunity to back this off, give it more than five‑foot front yard, give it room for trees along there. I would add that my interest is I live in the historic district adjoining on the other side of Park Avenue and the other side of Columbia, so it faces this development all the way around that corner. All the trees were removed, including a street tree, as far as I know, without a permit. And so to grant any kind of a waiver to give an opportunity to put trees next to the houses in a five‑foot front yard seems to me unwarranted. You begin by not removing the trees that are there. So I'll be back again next week. I just urge you, ask them to postpone, please, vote postponement, and ask them to make a better plan. There are lots of conflicts and no green space to speak of. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Okay. Staff, do you have any response? Or should I go to the applicant first? I think we're happy to meet with Ms. Clark about some of her questions, but the assertion that it doesn't meet the regulations I think is false at this point. There are some parts of the regulations she's either not familiar with or is misquoting. So, again, we're happy to meet with her independent of this meeting to answer those. And I would simply say that the reason I presented it here was so that you could examine what I had to say and decide whether it is or isn't true. It's not very helpful in my view for me or the commission to simply get a blanket, this is ignorance and misapprehension of the regulations. Thank you. Tracy, Ms. Clark started out by saying some of what's here is using one standard, single family. Some of it here is using multiple family. Is that accurate? The only piece that she mentioned that was trying to use something that was off was open space. And, again, we have a sign off for open space. So the planner for open space, Boyd, will review the information the applicant provides and ensure it meets the requirements. Okay, just as principle, I'd say we need one standard consistent throughout. Oh, absolutely. They are showing one multifamily building on each lot, which is allowed in our R2 zone. And the parking court information, again, you can have parking on your lot or share parking. They just usually have a parking and access easement for that. We have no minimum requirements for parking, so the unit one doesn't need any parking. Units two and three can have more than one per unit. You said they are interpreting it as one multifamily lot? It is one multifamily building per lot is what they have depicted. I just lost my... Okay, go ahead. Tracy, it bothers me that on this size of lot that we have 24 conditions. And you still recommend approval. Could some of those have been taken care of before you recommend approval? Well, so in staff's estimation, we are looking for things that cannot meet the ordinance. So there's really only one discussion item, that question about what is the use of the thing. Everything else that they have as a condition, they can adjust and meet the ordinance. With a waiver. And the waiver is only about the utility strip. They are reducing the utility strip. Trees can already be planted in the front yard in a tree easement. That's allowed by the subdivision regulations. The applicant has the choice to pick utility strip for my tree planting or the front yard within a five-foot easement. That's already part of our options in terms of development. Well, the reason I was asking that question is that anything we can solve here keeps us from having a longer meeting in the full hearing. And that's the reason I questioned the 24. I really think the only question that I wrote down that Amy brought up was about open space. And I'll be sure and meet with Boyd about that. Okay, thank you. This is just a question in terms of what our ordinance says back when we were looking at open space and green space. In this percentage of open space, are we counting balconies here? Are we using those to get to the open space figure? Looking at how much of this is green space, how much of it is open space overlapping with balconies? Do you know? So because there's not 25 units, we do not require common open space. So there's usable open space and vegetative. Vegetative obviously does not count a balcony, but usable can. Are we counting it on this one? Again, that will be a conversation between the applicant and Boyd in his sign-off. And the other question about the problem we ran into on Maxwell with the utility easement. Are we clear where the utility easements are on here? I have a feeling there are overhead utility lines, and we discussed that at tech committee. And again, that poses a problem with putting the trees in a utility strip where the line is right above it, right? Cut down in a few years. Exactly. So they are likely better off in the front yard, and they can still plant small trees to avoid the potential that they would, again, grow in and then be carved out for the lines, which isn't real healthy for the trees either. So there may not be easements for those lines. It's possible. Again, the applicant can tell us if those are just the existing lines that they've provided or if there's an easement associated with it. A couple of things. I did correspond with Boyd about this. I said I'm confused. How does it meet the requirement? He said it's single family. It has no open space requirement. The other thing I would add is that a small tree in the utility strip requires seven feet of width. The front yard has only five feet. Yes, that is the way the ordinance is written. Exactly. Okay. All right. Okay, thank you, Ms. Clark. We have a question for the applicant. Applicant, could you come forward, please? Frankly, I can't tell very much by looking at that map, and that's partly me. Can you address the question of utility easement, where that is? Sure. So I think this could be depicted more clearly on this plan on utility easements. There were none depicted on the survey, so we are double-checking that with the surveyor. With older lines, sometimes there are not existing easements, but we want to make sure that that's the case. So understood. I mean, there was – I wanted to clarify a little bit on the sidewalks and the waiver request to expand the sidewalks towards the utility strips. There will still be some utility strip, a little bit of buffer between the sidewalk and the curb, even though it's – the existing street right away is definitely less than, you know, the typical that you would do with new development now. We'll still have some utility strip and kind of edge between the sidewalk and the curb. On Oldham Court right now, the sidewalk actually goes up to the back of the curb for part of it, and that's an existing condition, but – so that one's a little bit different. But I just wanted to mention that because I understand that as a concern. And I want to clarify for everyone, when there's a utility on a private property, that's when they need an easement. So if it's crossing through these, it ran through the backyard, that's where you would see an easement. If the utilities are already in the right-of-way, whether they're under the street, next to the sidewalk, if they're within the bounds of that right-of-way, they are not covered by an easement. They're covered by our franchise agreement with that utility. And the right-of-way is owned by the government, and we allow those utilities in that area. Okay. Any additional questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. I guess we'll bring it back to the committee. Any discussion? Since Chris is new, I'm just, like, relaying, here's our next step. Absolutely. I understand. Okay. All right, committee. Madam Chair, let me offer this. I'll give it a try. Heard a lot, and I agree with Mr. Penn in the fact that when I looked at 24 conditions, that's a lot, but I did also look and realize that the sign-offs over the years have increased, and we're looking at, like, 13 sign-offs practically now that they have no control over. I'm seeing, like, three things of real substance, which means, you know, there's a few cleanup items, and if I heard the applicant right, she recognized that, and I kind of feel like they have intentions of making improvements on that prior to next week. We are going to have to hear this anyway due to a possible waiver, and I think the discussion item on the vehicle use area could be left, but my recommendation right now would be for approval of Plan MJDP 24-101. Current addition properties with the noted 24 conditions. Do we have a second? No, that's okay. I'm going to recommend, I'm going to second, and I'm going to recommend that this plan be cleaned up before it comes to the Planning Commission. I do have a question. Should 24 be resolved or still discussed? Well, we wanted the applicant to explain to the Planning Commission or the subdivision committee what the purpose of that area was, and they gave the same explanation that they gave at technical committee, that they intend for that land to be a parking space for their maintenance vehicles, and just to clarify, yes, a driveway is between the right-of-way and a parking space. Your parking space can start anywhere behind your front building line, so it doesn't have to be a garage or anything covered, so our interpretation is everything, the pavement behind the building is their parking space, and the driveway is the space between the right-of-way and that front building line to get to the parking space, and it can be just, you know, on a, what we consider right of driveway, but that's their parking space, so I don't necessarily see an issue with what they're proposing. We just weren't sure what it was, what the intent was, so we asked that question. So are you satisfied with their intent? I think we are, yes. So are we at resolve or still discussed? I think from our perspective, you could delete it because you've heard what it is, and we're not concerned about it because we feel it meets the regulations. Okay. Do you want to amend your motion? I'd like to leave it in, but I can put it in as a resolve. I think it might be noteworthy for a little bit of discussion. You okay with it? Amend the second to resolve on 24. Okay. All right. The motion has been made and properly seconded. Are there any additional questions? Correct. Absolutely. All right. Okay. All right. Are we ready to vote? All in favor? Aye. All right. We're unanimous. Thank you. All right. The next plan we're going to be looking at is MJDP 25-7, CalGill Partners, LP Properties, Meadowcrest, amended, located at 2550 Winchester Road. The purpose of this plan is to revise the layout on Lots 1 and 2 for a planned mixed-use office and residential development. This plan does require the posting of a sign and an affidavit. There are 12 standard sign-offs. And then to provide a lighting plan for Article 30 of the zoning ordinance. I'm sorry. Let me go back before I get into that real quick. So this is Winchester Road at the top of the plan. This is Polo Club Boulevard. This is I-75 and the Winchester Road interchange at this top left corner. And then along the bottom is the proposed tunnel road. The subject property is down here at the bottom of the plan. This is kind of a zoom in. Okay. This shows Lots 1. I think I'm getting this right. 1 and 2 and 3 and 4. And then this is zoomed in on the two subject lots. Let's see. So we have the 12 standard sign-offs. And then to provide a lighting plan for Article 30. We do need to see the residential square footage broken out of that. Provided the planning commission finds that the development complies with the expansion area master plan and they have submitted their infrastructure and compliance report. Provided the planning commission grants a waiver to Article 6-8A of the land subdivision regulations. To denote exactions to the approval of the division of planning. Discuss continuation of Paramount Drive as a private street and angled parking at the south end of Paramount Drive. To discuss notes 27 and 28 related to vehicular access on Lots 1 and 2 and Polo Club Boulevard. And to discuss the proposed supportive uses on Lots 1 and 2 in compliance with Article 23A-10 of the zoning ordinance. The waiver, I believe if memory serves, is related to Paramount Drive. I can't remember the exact language but it changes in width along as it approaches the subject lots. With that I'll open it up to you all for questions or comments. Any questions for staff? I think at TRC there were still some questions about whether that was going to be public or private. And that would make a difference on the street cross section. Additionally, the angled parking and the curve just would not work in a safety way. Parallel parking on a curve is permissible. Although it is challenging, it is permissible. But this angled parking on a curve presents a significant problem. In addition to that, disconnection was discussed at the previous development plan. And the note, item number 24, that says notes 27 and 28. That note was crafted because at that time the developer had told us that this was going to be a green space across there. And this connection could not be made. That green space was part of an amenity for the development. Now we've got a road crossing that area. And it significantly impacts what was permitted on the previous development plan. With an intersection that did not meet the spacing requirements. If you're familiar with Beaumont Center, there's an intersection very close as you come off Harrisburg Road. It presented significant challenges to the area in trying to address that. And we saw that with this plan as well. So I think we're going to have to revisit note number 27. Because Division of Traffic committed to if it didn't work, we would fix it. The developer would not be. The rules have changed now. Now we've got a connection that we were told we can't do. And it's exactly a pathway towards a tunnel road that we were pushing for on the previous development plan. But kept being told we can't do that. And now the first revision we see is this connection. Just to clarify, Steve, for traffic engineering. If this connection is made, which is obviously parallel to Polo Club and Commerce Avenue. Can you go back to the previous slide? Oh, sorry. The 1, 2, 3, 4 lots. Yes. Well, that doesn't necessarily help. You're right. The big one. Commerce Drive. Is that what? Not Commerce. Whatever. Cowgill Way entrance. Your contention is that intersection is problematic. And so you want to close the median potentially. That's what we were trying to address. Because we've got a full intersection with a signal that we could have right in, right out there. And close that median. You wouldn't be able to access these lots down here on the previous development plan if you didn't have a full intersection. You needed that because you didn't have a connection down this way. Now you've got a connection down that way. So you really don't need a full access. You can use the roundabout to come back. Very similar to an R-Cut project on a public roadway. That's what we were looking at here. I don't want to defend their design. Two things, though. They have submitted the parking or the traffic study. So traffic engineering has that to review the information. And their connection to Tunnel Road is off-site. So they have some limitations on the full circulation in that area until that portion of Tunnel Road is built. And at this point, I'm not sure the timing of that. Again, it's off-site. Correct. Just to clarify, what I'm hearing is there's more discussion that needs to happen here before we get to a final plan, right? A subdivision plan to be presented. Is that what I'm hearing? Yes. And the developer has scheduled a meeting for tomorrow with traffic engineering. And planning still has some questions, too, about the uses and the calculation of those on the revised number 21. I would just say it doesn't appear that we're putting residential in the right bucket. So I want to make sure we have a little bit more detail about lots one and two and the breakdown there before we ensure that we're getting principal supportive accessory in the right buckets because it affects how much supportive they can have. They have a maximum number of supportive uses. And if we're getting it in the wrong buckets, then it changes the number. Exactly. Chris, back up one. To the right, you've got the, I guess, open space. Yeah, that area to the right there. What's all the curvyness? Walkways? What is all that? Yeah, I believe those are walking paths. Some of it, the gray part might be the actual water. Yeah. Okay. There might be. And then, Chris, also, you don't have to go back. Another one back where we're showing all the residential and parking and so forth. But I guess, I don't understand where is the open space, where is the green space. But the lake provides that. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, in the ED zone, you can share your open space. It's 25% across your whole development. But you can share it in amenity spaces. I think they need to look at their trails and the grades that they're proposing because that stream is low. That embankment is high. So those trails are going up a slope. And so they need to look at that. I don't think they're required trails. Yeah. There's also, in the subregs, I think the sidewalk across there will probably need to be the width for bikes, beds combined. Okay. Any other questions for staff? I think everybody's needing to hear from the applicant. All right. Thank you. All right. Applicant. Good morning. Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicants. I'll kind of take some of these in order. Starting on number 13. I believe the lighting study was delivered to you last Thursday. Chris? I need to talk to Boyd. I believe it needs to show to the property boundaries because we need to know if there's light trespass at the property boundaries. So I was going to talk to you all about that today. We might need a little more information on that. But, yeah, we did receive it. Just want to make sure, because you didn't mention that. So we will follow up with you and Boyd about what you may need on that lighting study. And usually we just leave that on there as a condition so that we can ensure we get it before we certify and it's all correct. Okay. So that's more of a cleanup or not standard sign-off? It's not a sign-off necessarily. It's just something you have to absolutely provide before we certify the plan, and it has to be correct. Okay. So at this point it's not 100% correct, so we're not willing to do it. Just want to make sure we were on the same page. All right. So number 14, that's just a cleanup. We'll add on the height of the buildings. 15, we'll work with you on the site table and try to figure out how you work on breaking that out. That's not a big issue. 16, that's a standard. We need to make sure we get a finding next week. 17, we have asked for a waiver, and I'll kind of explain a little bit what we're requesting. Grab the microphone. And I'll grab this. So right now we are dealing with really these two lots, and then we're going to build the road, Hamburg Park, and then build this section of Paramount. We are not building any part of the road going from here to Cowgill at this time. That's not our plan. Because we do not yet know what these lots will likely be possibly reconfigured, so we're not 100% certain on what we're going to do there. So really we're just focusing on this part. And what we've done is this will be built to standard, but then starting here as the commercial area goes into more of the mixed-use area, we are going to construct the roads to standard, so, you know, the stone, the gravel, the asphalt. But what we're requesting is to be able to taper this down, and I think we are going to shrink the lanes down by one foot each to kind of naturally have a calming effect. As we go into this park area, as you see, we have paths going through. This is going to be an amenity for these users and ultimately these users. And then we're going to have parallel parking here. We have talked with David about working with here, maybe eliminating these in the curb parking spaces. That conversation is going to happen tomorrow. So we're hopeful that we'll get this resolved to traffic standard or agreement tomorrow on that. But that's really what we're asking for on the waiver is so we can shrink down the cross section a little bit so the lanes, instead of being 12 feet wide, will be 11 feet wide, plus we'll have parking on the roads. And that's kind of our plan for that. And we've mostly had our conversations with David, who I believe his daughter is sick today. And so he would have, I'm not sure how updated Stephen is on, so that's our discussions with them on that. Not yet, yeah. Then on 18, denote the exactions. We'll get that taken care of. Okay, so on 19, at this time for Paramount Drive, we are going to label it as private, but we're going to build it to construction standards but request the waiver so that we can shrink it down so in the future it could possibly become public. So that is also a conversation we can have with David on do they want to be private or public. We've got some flexibility on that. But it will be built to public standards with the waiver to shrink it down on the cross section. Then on 27 and 28, those notes primarily deal, and I don't have the exact language in front of me, but that's really dealing with Calgill Way. And the intent of those notes were when we start developing the lots that adjoin Calgill Way, we would have that discussion. And so we are not redesigning any of that area. That's note 27. Note 28 is about lots one and two, though. Yes, and so we've talked with David. And if you recall, originally we had this access point down here. We've closed it. It was a temporary. It's been closed. And so our only access, if we did not build this infrastructure, would be from this location until such time the tunnel road is built. And so we decided we would build. and connect the commercial, and I realized that maybe that was not the discussion when we first did the development plan, but if you remember, a lot of our discussions for that development plan were because in the expansion area, you can't build any infrastructure until you have a final development plan, and so a lot of our design was we think this is what we want to do, we think this is what we can do, but at the time, we were putting infrastructure on a plan so that we could build the main road so that UK could then start their project, and so some of this were being tweaked. I'm not 100% certain what the issue is at this time regarding the lots in the area that we're not yet developing as to the CalGateway, so I would say we leave the note for that one, and Carson can talk about that. So note 27 deals with CalGateway, which if you go back to this, is right in here. So the note says that when we decide what to develop on these upper lots, we'll provide a supplemental traffic study to determine that this intersection is okay. We're not currently proposing anything that's being built in this section. We're just focusing on the southern section, and note 28 says that this road, which was formerly unnamed, now it's Hamburg Park Lane, has to provide connection to commerce when we develop the lots to the north, and then across lots one and two to the tunnel road. So this connection from what is now Hamburg Park Lane to the tunnel road is something that note 28 specifically asks for, and that's why it's been provided. On the last, everything was spec on the last plan. This is something that we're planning to do, so that is why that change has been made is because the note asked for it, and to Brandon's point, because we have 274 units with some office, 410 bedrooms with one entrance if we do not have that crossing. So from a life safety standpoint and my conversations with David, we were very positive about this crossing as being necessary. The pond, the stream have all been built already. They're there. We've raised this portion about 20 feet and flattened it out, so it'll be a very usable space regardless of what sidewalks end up going in it. And then the last note is on 21, the supportive uses. That really dovetails into note 15. They're kind of connected to one another, so I think once we address one, we essentially address the other, so 15 and 21 are a little bit, not a little bit, they are very connected with one another. So we may be able to collapse that one or just keep them and then we, and mark it as resolved. So I would like to delete number 20, discuss notes 27 and 28. Delete number 19 since we have to get our waiver to build Paramount to how we're proposing it. And then the other ones are the notion, and then like I said on number 21, discuss supportive uses. We can list that one as resolved, and then we'll work with staff to get that one taken care of. Just my humble request. Just clarification, are you suggesting that what we've done here constitutes the discussion? Yes. Okay, any questions for the applicant? I don't know if it's for the applicant or for the traffic, but if Paramount is going to tie into the tunnel, is that what I'm hearing? If the tunnel is built, Paramount will tie into the tunnel? Yes, that's the eventual plan, yes. Why would you want to narrow a street that's going to go into a tunnel that's going to be a crossway? Oh, it's not an actual tunnel. It's called Tunnel Road because at the interstate, they're going to build a tunnel. This will actually be on the surface. I understand that, but it's going to go to the tunnel, right? It'll be a major crossway. We're proposing 11-foot lanes, which is not very small. It'll be part of the streets manual if I'm right on that, I think, as 11-foot lanes. So it's really just a traffic calming to keep people going slower in that area since it is a residential. I might understand that if you're going to back out, but if you're going to do away with the back outs, if you're going to do away with the angle parking, I don't understand the need for narrowing the lanes. I think the narrowed lanes is just between the two open spaces. Is that correct? That was my reading of it. You have three different cross sections through here. Well, I mean, our community has a habit of shooting themselves in the foot. I mean, we can all go back all these, and that's how we do development plans, one section at a time. But if we know the end result's going to be, why would we shoot ourselves in the foot by narrowing that, and then all of a sudden when it ties into tunnel, it's called Tunnel Road, if it ties into tunnel, then we wish we had that. Well, yeah, yeah, I think, let's see here, let me hit the right one. There we go. So, here's where Tunnel Road is going to be, and it's going to go into this roundabout, and we're going to tee into Tunnel Road, so the idea is, if traffic comes here, this will be built to whichever standard, the city or the state or whomever's building it, but as you tie into our development, we're looking for a calming effect by narrowing down the streets, and it's my understanding that the Complete Streets Manual is looking into shrinking down our lanes down to 11 feet as an option, as part of that calming measure. So, our thought is, in this area where we know we're going to have a park, more or less, and we know we're going to have a bunch of residential, would it make sense to shrink the roadway down as a calming effect in this area, if not, we could build the road, but we would actually be shrinking down our green space a little bit, and we just thought this would be a way to make this area a little bit safer, since we know we're going to have trails, we know we're going to have people, and this would be a calming measure for this section of the roadway. That was our intent. What you're doing is educating me on the future plans of where that gets to the interstate, and that's what I needed to see. So, I mean, I'm not questioning your plan, unless you do the parallel parking on it, then I would be questioning. Yeah, so, this is the main strip here, and this is going to be a side street. It's not technically a local street. Yeah, it's going to be more of a local streets. So, we expect main traffic, main traffic, local in this area, and then just our intent was to slow down that traffic in an area we think that there will be more likely to be pedestrians. Thank you. Yeah, traffic engineering has no problem with the 11 foot lanes. We think that with our complete streets, we'll see that more in the future. We don't mind on-street parking because of, you know, the regulations have changed for parking lots. We will see more on-street parking. We just need to ensure that the proposed parking is safe for people using the road and backing out of the parking spots. So, and this is the spots that you are concerned with? Mr. Parker, yeah. Yeah, those were the spots I was concerned with last week as well. I think I expressed my difficulty in parking. And those are the spots we're going to have a conversation tomorrow with traffic engineering. This is a great demonstration. Right, and in regards to accessibility, I think you just heard, they have a temporary access point there. They chose to remove it. Well, it could, during our discussions with the previous development plan, traffic engineering had proposed having a temporary access point there that would address what was brought up today. And when the tunnel road was built, part of the construction would eliminate that access point because of the dispute between the two property owners. And so, to justify removing it because we have to build this road and now using that as I've only got one access point, doesn't seem justifiable to me. What we asked for on the previous development plan is just about, is a lot closer to what I'm seeing today than it was during all those discussions. The problem and the reason I'm saying discuss note number 27, note number 27, Mr. Gross and I had negotiated, committed the Irving County government to construction if that intersection doesn't work in the future. But that was based on the limitations of that development plan. Those rules have changed since. And I think that's going to be part of the discussion tomorrow with traffic engineering. That's why I would like to see that discussion item left on there. He just proposed that that come completely off. That's part of this discussion that needs to take place with traffic engineering tomorrow because we're looking at a different circumstance now in this development plan and the connections made. I think we do and planning does as well because there was a traffic study that was submitted since last week as well that traffic engineering needs to review as well as the NPO will review it. So that and to Mr. Parker's point, this was a not a through street, right? It was down and then you had to go back out to Polo. Now it's a through street so that opens it up for, you know, the commercial properties to come down to Tunnel Road as well if they want to. So I think that does change how many vehicles might be moving through that Cowgill Way point up to the plan north of this. Looking from the outside in, it looks like this is creating the intersection. Looking from the outside in, it looks like this is creating the same condition on Tunnel Road that you, that was such a debate on Cowgill with that large intersection being so close like they have at Belmont Center. Okay, any additional questions for the applicant? Uh, thank you. Brandon, I guess I'm intrigued by the curvy trails. You mentioned all that as a park, I believe you said. Carson said that the stream had been built and a certain amount of fill had been put in and so forth. That is dedicated open space? Not subject to change? I believe that's, we've now built it out and that's going to be the kind of the, that's going to be the green space. But it's going to be dedicated, it's not subject to change? Correct. Yeah, that's the intent, yeah. All right, thank you. Dedicated, like you're going to dedicate your stormwater basin to the city to take care of or you're giving the park away? Are you all maintaining those spaces as? Maintaining. Yes, they're going to maintain it. They're not going to give them to anybody. No, my only question was that it's not just a placeholder for something to be built later. No, that's not the intent. Thank you. Thank you. And these two, that area is designated in the expansion area master plan and it's associated infrastructure stormwater study as green space. Yeah, just so you know, that pond will also serve partially UK's property and so the way this is being designed is that stormwater system is going to be there. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Anything else for the applicant? Yeah, we expect water to be, for it to be a water feature. Okay. The shaded area is the water feature and then the one just outside of it is the ditch. Anything else? All right. Thank you, applicant. Thank you. Okay. All right. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any other? Oh, I'm sorry. Is there any public comment? Okay. All right. Now we're back to the committee. It sounds to me like there's still more discussion to be had. I'm inclined toward postponement. Madam Chair, I move for postponement on PLN MJDP-25-00007, Calgo Partners, Metacrest, with the attached 21 conditions. All right. The motion has been made and second. Any questions to that motion? If not, all in favor? Aye. All right. We're unanimous. Good morning. We are now moving down to MJDP-25-8, Shriners Hospital, Massad Temple Association of Lexington. We've seen this property a number of times. We were out at Harrodsburg Road. This is Palomar. This is the property that we're looking at it now. They have a right in, right out, out onto Harrodsburg Road. Today, oops, let's go back. Today, they're looking at redesigning these two lots. And here's Syringa Drive that's going to go back here into the single-family residential homes. They're wanting to, let's see, Syringa Drive, they're wanting to make that. They're showing it as an access easement, but we can't do that for single-family homes. It can be a private street. So they're asking for this to be a private street with a gate on it down here. And then the other is, because this property is zone B3, we had the 30% lot coverage. And so we had some concerns and issues over them meeting the 30% lot coverage. They brought in a revised plan, so you'll have revised conditions. And what they've done is they've increased the lot coverage using canopies. They have a canopy here, here, here. So in total, when we recalculated the canopy, I see Mr. Penn just shaking his head. When they recalculated the canopy, they now exceed what they had. So with that, we have our list of conditions. The first 12 are our typical sign-offs. Then we have to note site statistics with cabinet and slide for lots one through seven. They have put in the new site statistics box down here at the bottom, but they forgot to put any calculation in for the acreage for the single-family dwelling units that we have up here. Provide a lighting plan per Article 30 of the Zoning Ordinance, because this is required now. Denote HOA on lot 23 as the detention basin. They're calling this a detention area, and on previous plans, they had labeled it as HOA. They're not labeling it as HOA now, so we need to see that application there. Label tree protection areas per Article 26 of the Zoning Ordinance per note one in the inventory list note that they have on the plan. Remember that this is the property where they had removed all the other trees around here, and we were in agreement that they were supposed to mitigate with trees, and they say they have some trees on here, but I'm not sure where those trees are, so we can't find those. Addition of private street and access easement maintenance note for Seringa Drive and for Fountain Blue Lane. Seringa Drive, they're wanting to make it a private street, so we need to have a maintenance note for that, and Fountain Blue Lane, which goes through the property from Seringa down through here over, connecting back over to the Hooper Ford fill pot property, we need to have an access note for that, because there are probably two different entities that are going to be responsible, so we need to have that. Discuss driveway access points. No longer lining up. Originally, they had a different layout for the access points, and when they brought it in, they changed it, and so we asked for them to realign them, and so when they realigned them, they brought them in this time. We still had question, and we have an access point here. Before, this access point was back here because of the way the parking lot laid out, and then we had the access point here, so what they've done is they've shifted this access point a little bit, but still, if this is a point coming out, you're coming out to somebody who's coming out on the other side. It's still kind of questionable. I think this is a better... You can see here in this parking lot, it used to come around the corner here, come around through here, and then it came out straight out. See how right there, it came out straight out to Fountain Blue, so now they put another curve in it to bring it out here, so we're still kind of questionable how this access points are going to be working and lined up. We have discussed the drive-through between the building and the canopy on Lot 3. We're told that this is going to be a proposed C-Store, and we have what they say out here is a canopy for gas pumps. They're also showing, as you come through here, a drive-through lane to come around the front of the property to head out. We're concerned over the drive-through for a C-Store to the gas pumps. Yes, agree, we have driveways between the access points to parking lots, but for a convenience store, it gets a little... There's more traffic, more different traffic flows. It's not in the same way. They're different between restaurants and C-Stores. Discuss the gas pump locations and dimensions from a residential zone. They are not showing us the pump layout, so we don't know how many pumps they're going to have, and per the ordinance, the pumps have to be 65 feet from a residential zone, so when measuring this to the residential zone, which is right here, when measuring this to the residential zone, which is right here, it was considerably less than 65 feet, so we had some concerns as to how exactly they're laying out the pumps and how many pumps they're going to have there. Discuss the proposed gate and the compliance on the land subdivision regulations. They're showing a proposed gate down here, and so the question is, because we have a public street leading into the property, we believe that that public street needs to continue further into this property so that it's past this access point to carry on through the rest of the property, so in reference as to where's the location of the gate, and we still need to have a definition as to where the public stops and the private starts. Let's see, and then discuss, like this is it, discuss the Syringa termination point from a public street to the proposed private street, so we want to know how that's going to work in this area, and with the gates, I know that the fire department has some restrictions that they need to have followed with the gates, and so I'm going to leave it to you all to see if you all have any other comments or questions. I do. Is it possible to drop that down a little bit so we can see up above the cul-de-sac there? Well. Nope. Is that all we got? Yeah. Yeah, that doesn't help. Is there a main road diagonally going from the top down to the right up there with that triangle point up there? Up here. What's that road? Okay, so we have single-family homes on this side, and then over here. Don't below that. No, the dark black line. Yes, those are access easement for the townhomes. Yeah, no, I'm talking above where you were, the dark black line going down to the lower, up above a little bit, a little bit more, the dark black above, a little more, that black, is that a property line? That's the property line back here. Yes, that's the property line coming down. This is right here. This is where the trees that were removed over in this direction for the parking spaces for this area here. So this is the connection between the property here, and then this up here was all single-family coming around, and then it comes down this direction here, backing up to single-family in the Palomar area, and then coming across this way. Okay. This is all Palomar. The reason I'm asking, this is just for me to understand what we're approving here. I remember, is the Syringa the street that had the block on it, and we, further down, council said we can't, is this the same street we've had conversations with previously? Okay. This is Harrodsburg Road here, and this is Palomar. Yeah. Okay. So the question I have is, in terms of the context of the Complete Streets Plan, we've got two cul-de-sacs showing on this plan. Is that consistent? But you're counting the access easement to the townhomes? Yeah, yeah. I'm looking at this, though. Yeah, but I'm looking in that whole area, in terms of what we're trying to do with Complete Streets, are we, is this model consistent with what we're trying to do here? Well, the residential homes in Palomar are all built, so we can't connect to it. We can't connect to nothing. Yeah. Every edge of this property, those angled ones and down, are all surrounded by single-family lots, and the only possible connection was Syringa Drive and Fountain Blue, and they're making those connections. I think our concern is, in terms of the subdivision regulations, private streets can't be, they have to provide for the through movement, so you can't gate it off over at Palomar Boulevard and not allow anybody to get to the commercial, right? So where we put the gate, and if you would allow them to have a gate, is really up to the Planning Commission. Yeah. I do think they're connecting where they can, and we want to make sure that there's through movement for the neighbors. I didn't realize that all of that would be built. So this is right here, where we want to make sure that we don't want to put the gate right here on this property line. We want to be able to have them be able to move through and onto the access easement. So that's why we have questions as far as the access, the location of the gate. We have a lot here, so it looks like they're proposing it to be in the middle of the frontage on the lot one, and then back. Yeah, there we go. So you can see it, it's kind of like in the middle of the lot frontage on lot one, and then it goes over here towards the detention area. So. I think that fire and traffic will address this, but the gate can't open out either into the public road. So wherever your private road starts, again, if the planning commission allows it, has to open in. It can't open towards the vehicle. And again, if you're inside, that's their issue to work out, but we won't allow it to open onto the public right of way. Does that make sense? Okay. Anybody else? Any other questions for staff? All right, thank you. Applicant? Madam Chairman, members of the Subdivision Committee, I am Fred Easteridge with Vision Engineering. Mr. Penn, I tried my best to make this list shorter, but I didn't. Apparently, I didn't accomplish it. I appreciate all you all going through this real fast. We'll take care of everything. I just got an email that the person I got to do the lighting plan has emailed that to me. So I'm going to give that to the staff here today. On the 13, the note cabinet slots 1 through 7, there was a small, there was a note on the, there was a, the site statistics for lot through 7 was on that. I just didn't put it into their format table because of room. I will take care of that. As I said, 14, I've got a lighting plan from the company, and they're going to do that. And they're going to do that. The HOA on lot 23, I'll do that. I was thinking about that would be dedicated to the Lexington-Ferryman County government. So we'll see. Tree protection plan, I showed the tree, the trees have been denuded. I need to look at note 1 on the inventory list, but they're, I showed on the plan where the existing trees are and that are being protected. I'll have to look at that, talk to that. 17, addition of private street and access easement maintenance note. I'll take care of that. I thought that, I thought we had a note on there that did that. On the face of the plan right here, you can see it. It says Syringa Drive access easement underneath it. And then just to the left of it in smaller font, it says 52 foot private street. I'm getting old. Can't be both. I get somebody with younger eyes to start looking at this stuff. I've taken that. That's me. I'm taking that. I'm taking that. So I apologize. We wanted a private street. I'll fix that. I swear. Oh, I need to quit coming up here and let Matt handle this. He's younger. Not much. And we'll, I'll look at the maintenance note. I thought we had that on there. Access point. It's the large maintenance note, not just saying we have maintenance by the HOA. I thought it was on there, street maintenance. Again, I'm taking that on myself. Driveway access points no longer line up. We move that to that access point to line up with the out from the C store. That's the best we can do. So we'll, I'd like to change that to resolve with traffic and to planning if I could. Now the drive-through between the buildings and canopy, I don't know if I, the, if you look at every Chick-fil-A in town, that's how their drive-through works. And if you're telling me that a Chick-fil-A doesn't have as much traffic as a C store, I think. Oh, it's a different use. So that's a restaurant and you're going from their parking lot into the restaurant. This, everybody that's in the canopy getting gas now has to cross if they want to go in and get a drink, cross that drive-through. Other plans that have that same situation typically have the drive-through coming down the side. So that the people getting gas have a free movement to the C store as opposed to everyone having to cross that. What makes the large? Click forward. Ah, there we go. And the top one is the shine. There we go. See, I have the drive-through here. So in other circumstances, here. Now, I look at putting this down the side, but that would block the out. If you had traffic lined up, I don't know what, then that would block the out going this way. Right, they'd have to go the other, the in-out up at the corner. That just doesn't, well, we'll do, if you don't mind, I'd like to resolve that with the staff and traffic on that. I don't agree. Opinions vary, and I'd like to try to listen to them and to that, if you don't mind. And then the public street and stuff like that. I said, I've taken that one on myself. It's going to be a public street. I just got to change the notes and make it work. So I would like to ask if you wouldn't mind to make this recommendation of approval. Because I think we can work everything out. And again, Mr. Penn, I'm sorry I didn't get all these things. Can you address the location of the gas pumps? That I don't know. I'm going to have to get. Well, I thought I would. Well, you got me all upset now. The gas pumps will be in this area right here. I know I measured this distance over here, and it was longer than 65 feet. Well, maybe the scale's wrong on the plate. It should be 60 scale. 60. I'll put a hard dimension on that from AutoCAD and mention that for you, all right? A hard dimension. I thought I had that on there. You want to see the actual island. We need to know how many fueling stations, right? We can do that. Because there's a maximum now. And the dimensions to the fueling station. Yes, exactly. To the canopy, I think we were at like 45 feet maybe at that corner. So 50, generously. So we don't know where the pumps are to know what the distance is. And it has to be 65 feet. All right, that's no problem. One of the pumps is over here. Yeah, on the car wash lot. And the other one is up here. So we can do that. But I would like to ask to change those to resolve. And ask for approval if you also deem it. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? I've got one. All right. First, usually what about what's going to be the use of the drive-through? I mean, for a C-store, what is it? Is that going to be a liquor store? I don't think it'll be a liquor store. It might be a Domino's pizza or something. That'll have drive-through pizzas or something. So that C-store could be divided in for a restaurant. Right. Kind of like what they did out in Newtown Park, yes. I was just trying to get an idea about what you're stacking, how many cars and all that kind of stuff would be there. And use changes, as you well know. Oh, yes, sir. Over in Hamburg. I have a question. Yes, sir. Ma'am, I'm sorry. Does the left side have to be two-way? Because I can see that being a problem when you've got people coming out on the opposite side of what you're used to, especially if someone's not from around here. We'd like to have it two-way so that people come in, do what they need to do, then back out and go through, and then not get involved in this. That's what we'd like to do. Because if somebody needed to come in here and get something, then they could back out and get out here and not have to drive through the pump area and all this stuff right here. Yeah, your arrows are on the wrong side. Am I? Right? Go back. You're going the wrong way. Yes, they are. Okay. Yes, they are. Okay. Well, I'm striking out today. If you don't... I think the staff recommends it be postponed at this point. If you don't... No, I'm sorry. I put those on backwards. Oh, well, I'm dyslexic anyway. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. If not, thank you. Thank you. Any public comment? All right, we're back at the committee. Do we, Planning Commission members, do we need to discuss the proposed gate issue? I guess I was just kind of wondering what was the purpose of the gate? The developer of the single family wants to make it a closed neighborhood, a restricted neighborhood, trying to make it more secure, give it some prestige, I guess. Oh, okay. That's the best I can answer is, he said he wanted it to be a gated community. That's so, which he's investing the money, he's building the homes, it's his choice. I don't have a say in that. Okay. I don't see a guardhouse there. I've got that job. I didn't say that you did. I'm applying for it. Oh, okay. But there is going to be it. No, I didn't think so. There's going to be a quick to open gate. Yeah. Where usually the guard leaves the house when the last lot sold anyways. I will say I cannot remember in my tenure, as a manager at least, that we've approved, the Planning Commission has approved a gate over a private, even a private street. They have gated like a townhouse development. But I can't remember any proposal to gate over a private street. So I don't know that the ordinance specifically prohibits it because, again, there's the through movement is happening over here. But it really is, I mean, up to the commission. You can't put a gate over a public street. Absolutely not. A private street, again, they're maintaining it. But over private streets. I'm sure there are, there have been in the past that have been approved. I can't remember in the last, you know, 10 years that we've done any. Okay. So what's your pleasure, committee? Any more discussion? Madam Chair, there's various discussion on this that still needs to take place. Various work that needs to be done. I can feel for Mr. Eastridge and his plea. However, I think we still need to stay in postponement mode. My motion would be recommending postponement of plan MJDP 25-8, Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple, Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple, Association of Lexington with the revised, we will take note of that, revised 22 conditions. You mean, oh, got it. You're not talking about any revisions we've had. No, no. Okay, thanks. Second. Mine says 24. Anyway, there's your motion. All right. But you got a second. All right, it's been moved and second to postpone. Any questions on the motion? All in favor? Aye. All right, unanimous. Okay, we're gonna move down the agenda. We're moving down to PLN MJDP 25-9. This is South Lexington Development Company, Incorporated Windale Development. This is located out off of Old Higbee Mill Road. This curves here, it goes over to Man O' War. If you go out this direction, you go around where it used to be a pump station, which is now closed, which then takes us out to Harrodsburg Road. We currently have this apartment structure on here. They've come in, there was a small piece of property left. They're coming in to build another apartment structure on this. We have single family across the street and single family detached homes behind them also. With this, we have our typical sign-off conditions. For the first 10 conditions, and then we have our new note for building inspection about building permits or buildings paving signs. They have to have a permit from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. Depict property information for lot two, including site statistics in a total column. Since this is combined together, I know that the applicant said that there are two different entities that are owning this, but it's somewhat of a development plan joined together as far as dwelling units. We'd like to see that information all together. Addition of building line on lot five, which is the new building over here. It looks like we have the building line here, but then it kind of disappears as it goes across this way. Addition of tree protection area on lot five. Discuss the retaining wall on adjacent property. The retaining wall went along the back portion of the property, and then it continues through here. Here is the retaining wall, but this property... Here's the property line. This area here is all open space. It was proposed greenway, and so we had questions about where, you know, if this was to be consolidated or whatever as far as what... And then discuss note number 15 from previous plan about the greenway dedication. Like I said, if this was to be dedicated to the city, we don't know that we'd really want to have a retaining wall to maintain for an adjacent piece of property. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Okay. Any questions for staff? All right. Applicants, ready to go. Good morning. One through ten. Sign offs 11, 12, and 13. I can do. The apartment building that's built is under different ownership, and the open space LLC is under a different ownership than this essentially little triangle that is currently in front of you. The triangle area, this goes to number 14, is graded flat. There are no trees there anymore. When the whole project was done, I think in 16, I think, site was graded out. We thought we were going to have more land than there would be two apartment buildings. Since that time, that has not happened. So that gets us to 15 and 16, which was the greenway dedication note. And yes, there was a retaining wall that was for the apartment building that got off of the apartment building property and into the greenway property. It was all under one ownership, so we built it where it worked for them. The current owner, James Perry, this was all done by Steve, his father. So James says that he can try to work with the people that took the open LLC property. There's a really big note on the previous plan that talks about when the dedication is, and it requires a punch list of items from the city. So if the city can produce a reasonable punch list of what they want done, he can take it to the new owner and try to get that worked out. I'm not sure what happens if there can't be an agreement between what is a reasonable punch list and not. I assume it has to stay under someone else's, under the current ownership until that time. If you've been with us here, you've seen lots of history on this one. That must have been your little hiatus away from us. Is this another way of saying that is beyond your pay grade to answer? He said he would try and we would work on it, but I do not have the answer. That's right. Yeah, for the low triangle we're looking at here, I don't believe I'll need the extension of the retaining wall. The site's been ready to go. There was attempts to do land swaps with the city for years, and lots of interesting things over here. The condition that was added with the revised conditions was the one to extend the sidewalk to the edge of the property line on the right side. That wasn't mentioned. Do we have to revise? Yes, yes. It's not on the agenda, but it was on the one that was printed. Yeah, when we talked at tech committee, Rory said, well, that's not my property. I'm not amending that portion. So if they didn't build their sidewalk, that sounded like between the city and that property owner. When you go back to that record plat and those development plans, it was clearly said that the sidewalk depicted on the development plan, which ends at that location. Subsequently, when we did the final record plat and easements were dedicated, it followed up on that development plan. That is as far as the sidewalk was going. There was a master plan for some greenway connections. Once this land was all dedicated, that might have been a connection point. There was a lot of moving parts and discussions of accessing and what that open space would do all through this process. It didn't seem like that was something that we could ask this applicant to do on the adjoining property. The other two things were discussing. So again, I'm not sure there's much we could do with the adjoining lot. And whether the retaining walls on their property or what's supposed to be dedicated to the government. Just as a FYI, since you're amending this plan, that's still an issue, I guess. So I'm not sure there's anything to resolve. So we can take the note. Or we can take the discussion item off, because I don't know that this applicant has any control from what we've been told, since it's different owners. And it's not like LLC1 and LLC2, and they both have the same Right, someone came in. So they built apartments, like most people do. And then they sell it to a management company from somewhere else that comes in and takes over a recorded build product to manage it. And so, yeah, I mean, I think he's got contacts to him, James does, from his father's time. But I don't know that he can make requirements. Coerce them to do anything. And really, if the Greenway lot has a problem of retaining wall, that's going to be something we have to work out with that particular owner. And that's something the city wants on their plate. We'll have to work that out. And it isn't necessarily this owner's responsibility for us to work that out with the adjoiner. What is that? What's that 16? Well, that's that retaining wall on the lot that the city wanted as, or it was shown as Greenway. So if they don't want land that has a retaining wall on it, then the transfer dedication of it, I think it's held up until that wall is resolved. Or we take a little bit less property. Say, hey, you're going to have to transfer this piece back to your lot. And maybe that's part of the punch list the city could provide as to what they want out there. It might just be move the line a little bit. OK, so clarification. Are we taking off 15 and 16, or just 15? We can definitely take off 15. I don't have in my brain what note 15 says. So I don't. Cheryl, do you have any clarification there? That should be my big dedication I'll carry forward, I think. So if there's a note about Greenway dedication, that should remain on the plan. But the retaining wall on Jason's property could be a different way then. Thank you. Did you change the notes? Probably been revised, yes. Well, your notes, yeah. It's the note 15 from the previous plan, not this plan. So let's go ahead and leave 16 on there, just so we can ensure that. And renumbered as 15. Yes, whatever note 15 was on the previous plan should, again, be on this plan. And I think we should take 14 off as well. Tree protection area on lot 5. Yeah, I thought you pulled up the aerial last week and saw that it was straight up flat. You OK with that? Yes. That becomes number 14, resolved. Take 14 and 15 off, and 16 is resolved. Delete 14, 15, and 16 becomes resolved. OK. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Any public comment? OK, being done, we're back to the committee. Thank you. Madam Chair, are we ready for approval? OK? You OK with approval? OK. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN MJDP250009, South Lexington Development Company, Windale Development, with the attached now 14 conditions, changing number 14 from discuss to resolve. We're moving for the old 14, 15, so now that's, yeah. Yeah, down to 14 conditions. Yep. OK. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor? We're unanimous. OK, we're moving down the agenda. We're moving to PLN MJDP2510, Highlawn Subdivision Block A, Lots 10 through 12. We had looked at this property. This is located off of North Limestone. Here's North Limestone. We had looked at this property not too long ago. Here's Balser, I can never get these out, and then Bluegrass Avenue. We have buildings here. This would be one zone, so we have buildings located along this fronting North Limestone. Then we have some parking that you come in off of Bluegrass Avenue for the parking, and then another structure to the rear. They're coming back in because they're having to change the street cross-section up here off of Balser. I can't get that out. Having to change that because once they got out in the field, there was some grade issues and some changes that they needed to make with removing the sidewalk to be able to do the improvements for the water drainage off the property. So this is just a matter of a real simple situation. Therefore, we just have a total of six conditions. The first four are sign-offs. Then we ask for them to enlarge the dimensions on the text on the street cross-sections because it was very difficult to read, and then provide a lighting plan per Article 30. So with that, I'll leave it to you all to see if there's any other questions. Any questions for staff? All right, applicants. Good morning. My name is Greg Smorstad with Banks Engineering. I don't have a whole lot to add to what Cheryl said, but we'll fix the dimensions, the note number five on there, and we'll get the lighting plan submitted. But I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you have. Any questions for the applicant? All right, no questions. Thank you. Any public comment? All right, we're back at the committee. Madam Chairman, I move for approval of PLE and MJDP 2510 with the six conditions provided by staff. Second. All right, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Very unanimous, thank you. All right. Next plan is PLN MJDP 25-11, Delaware Group and Clay Ingalls Company LLC Rail Yard, located at 968, 976, and 1,000 Delaware Avenue. The purpose of this plan is to incorporate 976 and 1,000 Delaware Avenue into the existing adaptive reuse development. And this plan required the posting of a sign and affidavit. On the plan, Delaware Avenue is at the top. Winchester Road is up to the upper left. There's the existing adaptive reuse project at 968. This development includes the 976, the existing structure, and then three proposed structures. We have 12 standard sign-offs. And we did get a revised plan. I just didn't get the revised conditions onto the agenda. So the applicant has made some of the corrections. 13 has been added. 14 has been addressed. 15, provide a lighting plan for Article 30. 16 has been addressed. And 17 is provided the planning commission finds the adaptive reuse project meets the requirements of Article 8-21-04 of the zoning ordinance. And we do have that adaptive reuse report. And I'll be working on having a report for planning commission for next week for that. The applicant has addressed 17, discuss the use of the banquet area and canopy on 976 Delaware Avenue, and discrepancy with description in the comprehensive plan statement. We talked about this at the tech committee. This area at the top of the existing structure was labeled banquet area. But in the report, it was described as a cocktail bar. And then the canopy was shown as a structure. And on the new plan, that's shown as a temporary canopy. And then the last one, that was addressed what we were just talking about, discuss the compliance of the principal structures of 20-foot front yard setback in the I-1 zone. That's why that was changed to a temporary canopy. So are you saying that after the sign-offs from 13 down, everything's been addressed except for what was 17, which would now be 13, or not? Oh, we have two 17s on there, yeah. The 15, had you submitted the light? OK, so we're waiting on a lighting plan. And then the first 17, that there's a finding that the adaptive reuse project meets the requirements. So I've got to go through that report and do finance. Let me ask that differently. Oh, sorry. OK, starting with number 12, from then on, how many of these conditions can go away? All but two, so 13, 14, 16, the second 17, and 18. Yeah. So that puts us at 12, 13, 14 conditions. Should be 14, yeah. OK. Any other questions for staff? All right, if not, we'll have the applicant. My name's Scott Southall with EarthCycle Design, representing the applicant on this item. And we are in concurrence with the conditions and have been addressing with staff those items that were mentioned by Chris. Just a refresher, it's nice to see this being redeveloped along Delaware. Sort of, would you, in a thumbnail sketch of what this whole development entails, redevelopment? Sure. Hit the bottom. Hit the bottom, OK. Why can't they have universal positions on buttons? Let me grab the microphone. The existing adaptive reuse project that was done back in, I think, 16, I believe, 2016, was this property here of 968 Delaware. So what we are doing is, because of the shared property line here and here, we are adding 976 and then, apologize, 976 to the project area as well as 1,000 Delaware. So at 976, the back half will remain as the motorcycle repair shop. And this front, roughly 20 by 25 foot square foot area, is going to be a cocktail bar with outdoor seating under this temporary canopy. We have updated the plan to say that this is a temporary canopy. At 1,000 Delaware, which is currently a vacant site in terms of structures, the structures have all been removed, we are proposing three buildings, one, two, and three, that will be mixed affordable housing, market housing, and retail space. So on buildings one and two, we'll have small retail spaces in the front, totaling about 1,500 square feet in each of the buildings. And then the remainder of buildings one, two, and three will then be housing units, studio, one, and a couple of two-bedroom units. We are proposing, then, this courtyard as being outdoor public space here. The item associated with one of the notes about the building line setback, we were slightly over that on these buildings here, so we've pushed those behind that. The updated plan reflects that. We had room to give in the rear of the property, so we were able just to make a shift backwards. Thank you. What's the total number of residential units? 32. There's 10, 10, and 12. And these will be, again, two and three, two stories in the front, so we're responding to the residential units that are across the street, and then three stories on the remainder of the buildings one and two, and then a three-story building in the rear. So on the other building, the repair shop, your banquet area and canopy is on top of the motorcycle repair shop? No, sir. It's on the first floor. They're going to convert the space to the cocktail bar. And the reason that we had cocktail bar listed was, if you look in the regulations, cocktail bar falls under the first category of banquet space, and so it's banquet space, something, something, something, cocktail bar, and so that's how it got misconstrued. It ought to be quiet in there. Yes, sir. Curious. Explain temporary canopy. So it'd be more seasonal, and so there's temporary canopies can be up for 180 days, and so that would be kind of that spring through fall time frame within the colder months. So you're saying that it will come down? The structure, at this point in time, would, yes, be removed or not. Is there a need to take it up? Why does it have to be temporary? Because it's inside the 20-foot building line setback. OK. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Any public comment? All right, we'll bring it back to the committee. Thank you. You're ready for a motion? Yes. Madam Chair, and I move for approval of PLN MJDP 25,00011 with the now revised 14 conditions. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. All right, it's been unanimous. OK, what's next? We would request this continue again for another month to next month's meeting. We are still in discussions with planning staff on this one and also the related item 2B on the same page, page 5. So this would be on page 5, item C1A and 2B. We're still in discussions with staff. And so we are hopeful that we will get past the disapproval in the next 30 days. And so we would request that we just have a continuous. Because we want to bring you a plan that we think you will approve. And we're not there yet. What's the date? What's the date next month? April 3rd. April 3rd. Is that spring break? Oh, thank goodness. Yeah. Yes, sir, if that's OK. We're OK with that. Yes, the subdivision committee is April 3rd. But then the planning commission meeting is April 10th, which is fake public school spring break. Yes, so I'll have to figure that one out. Since I'm supposed to be in New York City, one of my children is singing at Carnegie Hall that week. And so, yeah, no, there's no choice. Yeah, there's no choice, unless the client wants to fly me there and back that one day. So I know Ms. Whitman would love that costume. OK. So I guess we have to handle one at a time. Can we do it together? Motion. Do it together, OK. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN MJ, oh, postpone it. Sorry. I've got PP written on the side. I'm not reading it. I move for postponement to April 3rd of PLN MJ, SUB 2411, and PLN MJ DB 2474 to April 3rd, as requested by the applicant. Second. OK, moved and second. Any questions? All right. All in favor? Aye. Unanimous. Thank you. Just one point for the record. I've been talking with Ms. Wade, and we may do a consolidation of the applications and a possible withdrawal of one. So if it comes back and it isn't two cases, that's why. Thank you very much. OK. OK. Next plan, MJ DP 24-95, Newtown Springs, lot four amended, located at 1425 Newtown Center Way. The purpose of this amendment is to depict a restaurant, drive-thru parking, and circulation on outlot four. You should have revised conditions in your packet. There are 12 standard sign-offs, and the number 13 correct spelling in the purpose statement. Da-da-da-da-da. 14, document lighting plan for Article 30 of the zoning ordinance. 15, denote review and recommendations of the Royal Springs Aquifer Wellhead Protection Committee. 16, provide the Board of Adjustment approves the drive-thru facilities. 17, depict dimensions and bearings on proposed lot four. 18, denote access easement over lot 3A for the benefit of lot four. 19, label dash lines parallel to western boundary of lot 3A. 20, dimension covered patio, and add square footage on face of plan. So back up just a second. So Newtown Road is out here. This is Newtown Center Way. And then the original proposal was for this lot four for a restaurant with a drive-thru. It's been slightly changed since we first received it, and now it's including this lot 3A that actually encircles lot four. There were some questions about the lot coverage, and so this is their way of trying to address that. But I think physically, otherwise, it appears the same as the original development. We've just added a proposed lot. And with that, I'll open it up for any questions for staff. Yes. In the lot three, are both these proposed to be restaurants? No? OK. I'll ask the applicant. Thank you. All right, applicant. I wanted to start off with the reunion tour here of Scott, Steve, and I were all in school together. So it was just nice to have us all back together working. It's refreshing to know you all went to school. Yes. Well, Scott was the best of us. He always seemed to draw better. Oh, yeah. Yeah. State your name. I don't think you did that last time. We're EA partners here on Newtown Springs lot four. We are back. We have worked with staff nicely for, I guess, two months and came up with a very unique solution to the drive-through facilities on this particular piece of ground. Lot 3A is not slated for a restaurant. The reason this works out so nicely is that the drive-through facility requirements, which jumped to the B3 zone, can be met on 4. And 3A does not have those. They stay with the current B1 zone requirements. I have been to the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee. That was on the 24th. They have a standard recommendation over there is that you put a sign up that says water from here goes to them. The Board of Adjustment will be March 10th. We filed that. They've also been postponing as we work through this. I have seen their recommendation for approval. So by the time I'm back in front of you, we should have been through them, hopefully still with that approval. And the four new items are all clean up drafting things to do with this new layout. Thank you. Do we know what the restaurant's going to be? We do. Oh, you can't say. I don't think they've signed the documents yet. Oh, OK. I'll just ask. Yeah. I have a personal interest. We can say it now. I'm told I can tell you it's Panera. Panera? They said. It's a what? Yes, Panera. Oh, OK. A competition with Starbucks. Where is this, Roy, in connection with Kroger's? Kroger's is south, down the page. South, down the page? OK. Yeah. Oh, you know I'm old school. OK. Up at the bottom. Bam. All right. Top button highlights me. OK. This is our lot. Just above us is Starbucks. If we come down. Never mind. I wasn't going to bring that up. OK. Tired Discounter. And then behind Tired Discounter and a little bit more south of there is the Kroger's. Kroger's. I like to make it sound French. Kroger's. You said the other lot was B1? All of these lots are B1. But you know that ordinance is written to make any drive-thru hit the B3 requirements. Yeah. I think you're all working on changing that. Can a restaurant go into B1? Yes, it can. It's the drive-thru. Well, I'm not asking about a drive-thru. I'm asking about a restaurant. OK, thank you. You're getting some choices coming very quickly. All right. OK. Any other questions? We're going to need a diversity where people live on this area. I could throw out some options. They would like to have some people. OK. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Any public? Thank you. Any public comment? If not, we're back to committee. Thank you. Madam Chair. Do you want me to do it? Oh, go ahead. Somebody else take it. You can leave that down there. Well, you know, certainly. Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation of approval, plan MJDP 24-95 Newtown Springs with the revised, or we're still holding on 20 conditions? OK, thank you. Second. Second. Oh, go ahead. Seconded by Mr. Penn. Any questions? All in favor? We're unanimous. Thank you. I do think that's all of the revised plans that we have, so nothing else in regard to that. But I would just mention that the zoning committee this afternoon really only has one case, and it's the House Bill 443 ZOTA. So I believe we emailed you all that staff report and the text. But if you want a hard copy of that, I have a few. Uh-oh. Everybody. No, I'll just have to run upstairs and get a couple more. That's OK. That's it. Do you want me to go over the staff report? No? OK. The staff's recommending approval. The short version. I just want to go on the record here saying I'm still very uncomfortable with what we're doing with subdivision in terms of not any kind of hearing or whatever. That's going strictly to no public comment on the subdivision. And a question for you guys. This came from Ms. Clark, so I want to run it by you. You've probably heard it already of whether it would be possible to put those on the planning commission agenda and hear them like we do consent items so that there is an opportunity for comment from the people that are going to be impacted. The only that doesn't align with House Bill 443. OK. Because what we're doing is evaluating the plan against the regulations. But we do that with schools, and we do it with public utilities. Yeah, that's in KRS 100 that says the planning commission has the authority to do those in a public facility review. In fact, you're required to. But this new regulation in KRS 100 says you no longer have the discretion to ask for extra things above and beyond. And so what's the point of the public comment? I guess that's the, usually it's to ask for things that are to address something and ask for more. What the point of the public comment is trust in the process and trust in your staff. Yes. I mean, that's the point of the public comment. Whether the legislature in Frankfort believes that or not, the pushback in Fayette County is going to be strong. I know. Because surprise, surprise, it's not a waiver. It's just going to happen. Right. And we're not used to that. I know. So how are you going to communicate to your 21 neighborhood associations how they're supposed to deal with that? Well, unless there's a waiver, they really are left out. Yes, they are. And that's a public, I mean, as a professional planner, I recognize that public input is important. And I think what the state law is saying, public input at the right point is important. After that, if they meet the regulations, we cannot hold up our developers. I think that that's how I interpret that. And I'm back to saying the only point that leaves them is come to technical committee. And I know you all are not really interested in having that turn into a public forum. But that's what's going to happen. And what really bothers me is the trust. We've developed for a long time the trust in the fact that we were open and transparent. And we've even done comp plans based on openness and transparency. And now, all of a sudden, two people in Frankfurt, two paragraphs, are going to change 40 years worth of tradition. It's going to be tough to swallow. I understand. But I don't hear any solutions. Well, I mean, we are responsible for making sure our regulations adhere to any state law that is adopted, whether we professionally or personally agree with the law that was passed. So that's my responsibility, is to ensure that our process follows those state laws. And that's it. So have you all looked at any other opportunity to allow the public to have a say, and still adhere to the law? But is there a point in time where we can have the public comment? Well, with a waiver, adjoining property owners will be notified to attend. But that's only with a waiver. Only with a waiver, exactly. There's not anything that we have built into the process. But certainly, applicants can meet with neighborhood associations before they file for a development plan. And we can recommend that. Well, yeah, I think we could force neighborhood meetings if there's a neighborhood association. We could change our regulation that says, you, before you file, have to meet with the neighborhood association. Louisville does that. And that fits into what our last comp plan said. For zone changes. For zone changes, for sure. And we don't want to lose that, Tracy. We really don't. So can we ask you today to change that regulation? Yes. I mean, it's under the zoning committee for their purview. Can we ask you forward to the zoning committee that this committee has asked for that regulation change? Yeah, we can talk about it, for sure, at the zoning committee. I don't know, time-wise, if we have the bandwidth to get that in. So let me be on. The only other is injunctive relief. And the neighborhood association would have to go to Frankfurt and ask for that. You mean appeal a decision? You can call it whatever you want to. But the question that comes is that I don't think the intent of the law, I know what the intent of the lobbyist for it was. But I don't think the intent of the people that passed the law was to do things behind closed doors. And that's what actually happened. It's going to happen. Just like today, I was looking at these things that we discussed, and violent development plans, and all that. It's going to be a real zone change after the 1st of July. We have to change all that. But that's a different point. My point with this is that with the legislature that we have now, and with the representatives we have in Fayette County, you can bet your life there's going to be something behind this in order to give the public the opportunity to have input. Because I don't think the people that voted for that, other than the people that were carrying the water for the developers, really and truly knew what they were doing. So my question to all of us is, are we all in agreement that we'd like to see a request to the zoning committee to change that regulation to require meeting with? Everybody agree with that? Yeah, I am. Yeah. We can do that. I would also like to add the fact that at our work session last couple of weeks, whenever it was, that there was a fair amount of discussion as to the wonderful language of substantial compliance, and then also renderings, and whether we can ask for renderings or whatever. I really think that the applicants started bringing us renderings to give us confidence to help move forward. And I'm very much of the mindset that more information is better. And I would definitely like to stay with that if there's anything we can do, much as what we just discussed, if there's anything we can do in regards to that, I'd like to see that as well. Because I said in the work session, I don't think it's if when the applicant and when everybody comes together, we, the commission, I don't think normally gets in the way. We approve most stuff. And we provide some, I think, sound advice and so forth. But it's not that we're a roadblock. The assembly put, I think, the more information that they can provide us, the better, to help move things forward and keep things as simple as possible. So I don't know what language you can add to that, but I think it's worth consideration as well. Trustee, the one other point I'd like to make is that we put a lot of time and interest on place builder. That was the common theme of pretty much the last two comp plans. That's what drove this. And so the question becomes, place builder's going to be gone. Is it? Oh, it's going to be watered down. It has to be. Because number one is, we wouldn't be asking for this if we still had place builder. Because they just have to meet with the developer. Well, I think we might be confusing the two. So place builder is part of the comprehensive plan, so those are recommendations. And that list of development criteria reflects policy goals, objectives in the comprehensive plan. I would say a good number of those policies have been codified in our zoning ordinance, but not all of them. And so there's still kind of more of a, this is the ideal. This is how we think we can meet the comprehensive plan. And then the next step when they come in and say, well, I'm meeting the comprehensive plan and I'm also meeting the zoning ordinance, I would say there's still a gap between the two. They don't match up exactly. And that's, I think, typical for most communities, because your comprehensive plan is the vision for the next 20 years. We can't implement it all at once. So they're meeting the zoning ordinance, and that's what we're talking about today, making sure that those measured things are in the zoning ordinance, whereas place builder is still the ideal, recommended, how do we meet the policy goals, objectives. So they're different. Ideally, our zoning ordinance matches up exactly with the comp plan and all of our, yeah. I don't see place builder going away. Well, if you didn't force the applicant to meet with the neighbors, they wouldn't do it voluntarily. Now, let's just lay it on the line here. They're not going to go out and schedule a neighborhood meeting at a church unless they're forced to do it. Well, I think they are reluctant, because they don't like the negative feedback sometimes. And I think if we just kind of change the parameter, or the way we view that, as it's an opportunity to hear the both positive and negative things up front, so that you can address them through the process, as opposed to, I don't want to go fight with people. I mean, if you approach any meeting with that mindset, it's not going to go well. So if you approach it with a how can we work on to get to the best development and meet the comp plan, surely your meeting will be productive. Now, I will note that there are always going to be situations where the developer and the neighborhood cannot agree. Because they have, again, they have different, they're both stakeholders, but they have different approaches to different visions, right? Which is why we offer to attend those neighborhood meetings to help explain the process. But also, there are going to be things that you want, that the neighbors want, that the applicant just can't do either financially, for environmental reasons. There's a whole host of reasons why things can't happen. And then there's going to be things that they don't want to do, for other reasons. Well, and just to be candid, neighborhoods are often going to say parking and property value. And those are, you know, we can't deal with those when they come to us in front of us. That's not right. The pendulum always swings, and it always swings too far either way. And so the question that comes is, how do we, as Fayette County, keep our trust and openness given House Bill 433? I mean, that's the bottom question. How do we do that? And I will tell you, it's going to be really tough on you all. And we're not going to be there to give you something to back up against. And that really bothers me, because you need to. We don't mind taking the heat sometimes, but you won't have us. Yeah, I understand that. OK, any other comments, questions? Just one more, Tracy. There was some conversation a week or 10 days ago as to another work session for House Bill 443. Is that an opportunity? Yes, we have another work session between now and the public hearing. And Daniel can be there to discuss those issues. I'll be off that day, but yeah. OK. If you want to talk about it otherwise. I don't think we were planning to. I think when I said there was some discussion, there was some that thought that it was going to show up on the agenda a week ago. And that was going to be brought up, since it wasn't on the agenda a week ago. It wasn't brought up. But that was a discussion. I think they would like to have it. I would like to have more discussion. That, and we don't have a scheduled time for it when we talk about affordable housing. And I don't know if that's supposed to come up in the next work session. I know we were waiting till we get the new commission member. But after that, it's going to get complicated by what's happening with the federal government. So we'll see. And I don't remember off the top of my head. The director and the chair usually make plans for the work session. So I don't know. I think it was April that they had talked about addressing affordable housing. But again, that's contingent on getting the right people here to make presentations to you. April would be great, since it's Fair Housing Month. Oh, absolutely. Perfect. All right. Well, that's it for me. Thank you all. All right. Anything else? If not, meeting adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Free to go with the flow anywhere that I wanted to But the moment you set foot on my shore That's when I knew There's a difference in livin' and livin' well You can't have it all all by yourself Something's always missing till you Welcome to Code Enforcement or Not! With your host, 6th District Councilwoman Denise Gray And her special guest, Director Lee Steele of Code Enforcement Hello, everyone. This is me, Denise Gray, your councilwoman for the 6th District Today, in my second council comment of 2025 I'm glad to bring to everyone Director of Code Enforcement, Lee Steele Hello, good to be here Lee, I'm just so happy to have you here today Over the past year, you and I, we've done many town halls together And I just want to say, before we get into this conversation, thank you You're welcome. It's been a pleasure working with you I enjoy every moment of it and looking forward to what's on the horizon You're new to this position I have been in this position since fall of 23, just a little under a year and a half Wonderful. So, Lee and his team have made some amazing achievements And changes here in the Division of Code Enforcement They've been working so hard to implement some wonderful changes And we will learn more about those changes today But first, time to play a game Code Enforcement or Not! So, I'm going to ask you some of the questions that my office has received From residents around Lexington regarding code enforcement And oftentimes, many of the things are not covered by code enforcement So, in this game, I'm going to give you some of those scenarios And you're going to say, let us know if it's code enforcement or not