The first item on the agenda is the approval of minutes. We have the February 13th minutes ready for review, comment, revision, and approval if there's a motion. Thank you. Ms. Worth. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the February 13th, 2025 minutes. Thank you. That was a motion from Ms. Worth for approval. Mr. Wilson seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none. We will vote. Oh, actually, I need to withdraw my vote and abstain. All right. That carries with two abstentions. Next item, postponements and withdrawals. I'm sorry. Let's go a little out of order and do our performance bonds and letters of credit. We have a memorandum in our packet from Mr. Fairchild. Is there any discussion or motion on the performance bonds and letters of credit? Mr. Pim. I move for approval of the call of the bonds. Thank you, sir. Second. Second from Mr. Owens. Thank you. Any discussion? Yes, sir. Just a clarification in terms of what we're looking at here. We have a design report. Is that a separate document or does it fit in with the performance bonds and letters of credit? Okay. So we're having a technical issue here. I'm looking at three documents here and I don't know if one of these is a performance bond or letter of credit item. It's the Shriners Hospital 50% design report. Is that a separate issue? It is a separate issue. Okay. So the engineering bonds officer, Bill Fairchild, sends us a memo each month. This is their request from engineering to release and call the bonds. The 50% reports are required by the land subdivision regulations. So before we approve a plat via the technical review committee, they must submit to the commission a 50% report which just says, hey, we're 50% done with our design and here are the issues that we've encountered or perhaps there's no issues that we've encountered but we've hit that milestone. Okay. Thank you. All righty. Thank you. Do we have any discussion or motion? Do we have any discussion or motion? Mr. Owens? Oh, I'm sorry. Did we? Oh, yes, we did. I'm sorry. Okay. If there's not any further discussion, we'll go ahead and have a vote. Thank you. Number three, postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any applicants postponing or withdrawing today? Mr. Chairman, for the record, this is Jihad Halani with Vision Engineering. On page three, item number C, for Red Mile Mixed-Use Development, we'd like to postpone 30 days, please. And we are still working with Urban Forester on the mitigation plan and other items. Okay. So that would, 30 days, that would take us to our May 8th meeting. Is that correct? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any discussion or motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? Yes. Motion from Mr. Penn, second from Ms. Davis. Any discussion? This is to May 8th. Seeing none, yes. Has there been any public comment submitted to the Planning Commission about that plan? In fact, there has. I believe we've received three or four emails. It's in the Granicus system for that particular case, but we'll likely just hold that until we meet again about it. Thank you. Okay. If there are not any other comments, we have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and take a vote. That carries. That helps. Yeah. Ms. Davis? Thank you. That carries unanimously. Mr. Chairman, I have a request, if possible. On page two, which is distillery district to U-Haul, can it be heard basically substituted with page nine, the Liberty Road, to be heard the first one and then replace the first U-Haul with the Liberty Road one and the reason the applicant, the owner has a flight to catch it. So, if possible. So, you're asking to have the Liberty Road case heard first before the distillery district? Or let the distillery district take that place so we can take somebody else to switch the order of these two projects. Without objection from the Planning Commission, I mean, I don't have issue with it personally. Is everybody okay with that? Yeah. Okay. Without objection, we'll reorder those two. Thank you. Sure. All right. I'm sorry. I'm clarifying something for myself. Did he say page 10? The page behind this L. Oh, okay. Okay. So, we're going to do that first. And then. Okay. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Yes, sir. Chairman Davis, we did have one for page 5 and that's PLN MJDP 24-97 Park Hill Shopping Center, lot 4. In fact, this applicant requested that this item be withdrawn. Indefinitely? Just withdrawn completely. Okay. They indicated they would bring another plan back if they could work out the issue. All right. Motion? Sure. Yes, Mr. Pinn. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move for withdrawal of PLN MJDP 24-97 by the request of the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Pinn. Second from Ms. Barksdale. Any discussion? Seeing none. All right. That carries unanimously. Continuing on to page 6. At the top, item G, PLN MJDP 25-1 for the GDK Farm LLC, also known as the Turner property. And that's property at 5447 Tate's Creek Road. They asked for another one month postponement. Thank you. And that would take us to May 8th. Yes, sir. All right. Any discussion or motion on that request? Mr. McClure? I move to postpone PLN MJDP 25-1 GDK Farm to the May 8th meeting. Thank you, Rob. And second from Ms. Worth. Any discussion? Seeing none. I'll take that to a vote. Thank you. Do we have any others, Ms. Wade? Yes, on page 7. Item I, PLN MJDP 25-12 for the Locust Hill Shopping Center, B6P area for Jaggers, an amended final development plan for property at 3029 Richmond Road. The applicant also requested a, Chris, can you clarify, was it a one month postponement on that? One month, yes. Okay. One month to May 8th. Any discussion or motion? Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of PLN MJDP 25-12 Locust Hill Shopping Center until May 8th. Thank you, sir. Second. Second from Mr. Penn. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none. Carries unanimously. All right. Does that take us to a consent agenda, Tracy? Yes, sir. We do have a fair number of items on the consent agenda today, so I'll read those out, and if there's anyone in the audience, I actually don't see anyone in the audience to object, so we'll read those, and then the commission can take them all with one motion if they desire. These are all final development plans that have been recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. The first one appears on page two, item B at the bottom, PLN MJDP 24-15 for Terrace View Subdivision, Unit 2B. This is a request for property at 1702 Versailles Road, and it's for an extension of a previously approved plan. Page four, item D, PLN MJDP 24-74 for Hoover and Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property, Lot 4, the Fountains of Palomar, and that's an amended final development plan for 3855 Fountain Blue Lane. The next item is also on page four, item E, PLN MJDP 24-88, the Givens Property, Outlot 11 at 2300 Remington Way, then another outlot for Givens Property on page six, item H, PLN MJDP 25-2, Givens Property, Outlot 6 for Wendy's, and that's at 2341 Remington Drive. Next on page 10, item M, PLN MJDP 25-17, the Columbians Incorporated Property, Versailles Road, also an amended final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan for property at 1604 Versailles Road. And then lastly on the back here, page 10, item N, PLN MJDP 25-18, the James Motor Company and Catherine M. McBrayer Property for property at 2350 Lake Park Road. Thank you, Ms. Way. Thank you. So, if anybody today would like for any of those items to be pulled off the consent agenda and heard in a full hearing for the Planning Commission, please make that known now. Otherwise, we can vote on all of those items in a consent agenda manner. All right. I'm going to test the mic. Is it on? You can hear me okay? All right. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the, I believe it's six items on the consent agenda as presented by Ms. Wayne. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Second from? Second. Oh, thank you, Ms. Barksdale. Any discussion? Seeing none, we can take that to a vote. Thank you. That also passes unanimously. So, if I'm correct, we are starting with number one on page nine, item L, PLN MJDP 2516. Thank you, Cheryl. Good afternoon. We'll find an orange copy with revised conditions for this plan. I'm going to have to jump forward here to find what we're ... Okay, here we are. This is MJDP 2516, Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, lot 127. This property is ... Oops, am I doing that yet? There we go. This property is located ... Here's Liberty Road. And then, oops, and Paradise Lane is down here at the rear. We've seen this several different times, this piece of property. The last time we saw it, we had apartments on it. Now they're coming in and they're wanting to do a mixed-use senior living facility with apartments, townhomes, and then a medical clinic. They're proposing a medical clinic right here in the middle, which was approved with the Board of Adjustments. With that, we have revised conditions. The first 12 are typical sign-offs. We have 13 addition of lighting plan per Article 30 of the Zoning Ordinance. This is revised. Remove all shading. It makes it hard to reproduce the plan when we have a lot of shading on it. Clarify building square footage on plan phase for totals and site statistics box. A couple of the numbers when you add the building totals per plan phase don't match what's in the site statistics box, so we need to have that verified. Clarify the number of stories and building height for building E. Depict building bicycle racks for building C and D, and then resolve the access from Paradise Lane cul-de-sac to the approval of traffic engineering. They have brought this in and now they added the lot off of Paradise Lane, so this lot has been added to the property to be included, and they are proposing to have a terminus of a cul-de-sac located on that end of the development. They will have a gate going into the rear for emergency access. We'd like to ask traffic engineering to take a look at it because of the way the access coming into the development, it looks a little off-centered, so we just want to make sure that they take a review of that and get it worked out. With that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you, Cheryl. Do we have anything? Any comments or questions? Mr. Mickler? Yeah, in some of the earlier iterations, there was discussion of traffic and safety concerns for residents of Paradise Lane and Wilderness Trace, that with the widening and increased traffic on Liberty Road, that their non-signalized intersection would become very challenging and dangerous to enter and exit from, and that was one of the discussion items why we added a note to not have the gate on Paradise Lane, and I see that the gate has come back, so I was sort of commenting in concern that as we increase that traffic on Liberty that we're creating a problem for all of those residents on Paradise and Wilderness. So a few things have occurred or come to light since that hearing on an apartment complex here. They've proposed a change of use, so the use is not your typical apartment complex but rather a kind of a transitional housing situation for seniors, so from duplexes to apartments to assisted living all on the same site, along with a medical office, and that went to the Board of Adjustment for approval of a conditional use. In front of the Board of Adjustment, the same neighbors attended and told the Board that they were first interested in a buffer, which is denoted on here, so they have a 15-foot wide buffer in the back. They were happy that the buildings were being moved further away from their homes, and then they indicated that they were actually not supportive of full access onto Paradise. They thought that might cause more issues, so there was that testimony. So the applicant, I think, took that information as we should now propose a gate again to protect our property from people passing through. The other new information we received is Liberty Road is currently going through a state project for widening up to this property, but the section that goes further into town, which includes the Wilderness Road intersection across from Christian Road, and then also the intersection with New Circle, is under a different project for the Transportation Cabinet, and they're looking at installing a traffic roundabout there, which would not put another traffic signal in, but allow for people to turn left more easily. That's it. All right. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if Cheryl or Tracy, as far as number 18 discussed, terminus points and improvements to Paradise, I know there's been a lot of discussion on the various renditions of plans and so forth. Where are we with that at the present time? They have proposed the cul-de-sac, which is, we needed a terminus point, some form of a terminus, and the terminus that they chose is the cul-de-sac that they're putting shown on that adjacent piece of property. They're including that adjacent piece of property in this development. Okay, but that's on their property, correct? Right. Yes, sir. What about improvements to Paradise? They also agreed to widening Paradise to a 20-foot width for the fire and emergency access. Okay. Thank you. All right. Does anyone have anything else? Okay. Thank you. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, this is Jihad Hallani with Vision Engineering. We are in agreement with the staff about the widening and also about adding the cul-de-sac, and if there's any question, we'll be glad to answer it. All righty. Do we have anything for applicant? Ms. Davis. Yes, thank you, Chair. I just read through the residents who are the ambassadors of the nearby area, and is the 15-foot landscape buffer wider than required, or is that the requirement that it be 15 feet? Well, during the Board of Adjustment, we commit to have minimum 15 feet, and also along the west side of the property, we are providing 40 feet of landscape buffer. So we at least have minimum 15 feet adjacent to the residential, and that is going to include like fence, double hedged trees, and then along that line. And I believe they were asking for a 30-foot buffer, and yet I understand that you have a need to include parking. I wonder, is there any room for a wider landscape buffer to help the people who live on Wilderness Road with, I guess I've read some of the comments about that there's a lot of beer bottle sounds when they empty the trash. It seems like it's kind of a, I know that we need to, I believe, continue to focus on infill and redevelopment, but it seems what they're asking for, the Wilderness Road residents, might be able to be a bit more accommodated in terms of a wider landscape buffer there? If it was a new user, there would not be a beer bottle or anything like that on the back of the property, and that property is going to be totally fenced and contained. An area where we can meet the 30 feet, actually we are showing 40 feet, and then also, as you can see on this development, we went square footage, almost double the density of that site from the one that has been before, and I believe this is heading in the right direction with the vision of the city on the long term, how to maximize underdeveloped property, and I mean, this is really high density, and then in the area where we are adjoining residential, we commit to kind of have eight feet tall fence with double-hedged trees and any dense vegetation that can be evergreen vegetation to kind of create that buffer. Okay. Do we have anything else on this particular plan? Floor is always open for a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I would move for approval of Plan MJDP 25-16 Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, lot 127, with the noted 18 conditions, I would like to change the wording on number 18 to denote the terminus point as shown on the plan and improvements for Paradise Lane to 20 feet on the adjacent property. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second it. Thank you, Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, we will put that particular motion as amended to – I'm sorry, the motion was not amended, but Mr. Owens changes to a vote. Oh, Mr. Jonathan Davis. And that carries 9-1. Thank you, applicant. Okay. So, by my count, that takes us to page 8 for PLN MJDP 25-13 Lexmark International. Good afternoon. We'll be looking at PLN MJDP 25-13 Lexmark International Corporation DKY5 exterior AVI amended. This is located at 1180 Newtown Pike. This is the Amazon facility off of Newtown Pike. Can you tell us the page number? I'm a little lost. Page 8. Page 8. Thank you. I'm not. Page 8, letter J. I don't know why, but thank you. Yeah. It's fixed to say. It doesn't – Am I going? Okay. All right. So in your packet, on the yellow page, you'll have revised conditions for this. Let's see. On the plan, Newtown Pike is on the left side of your plan, and the intersection with Nandino is down in this area down here. The proposed structure is in this area here, kind of in the middle of the plan. It is a 50 by 31 approximately structure that I think is 19 1⁄2 feet tall. The AVI is an automated vehicle inspection building. On the staff report, you have 11 standard sign-offs. The applicants worked through a lot of the cleanup stuff from earlier iterations. And then number 12, we have provided tree inventory map and tree protection plan for Article 26 of the zoning ordinance. Number 13 is to provide a lighting plan for Article 30 of the zoning ordinance. And number 14 is to document compliance with the stormwater manual quality requirements. We did find a discrepancy in the statistics for the tree protection plan, so there were a few questions about that that I was discussing earlier with the applicant, and he may be able to explain it a little bit better, but there was approximately an acre and a half that was indicated that there would be four and a half acres of tree can be required on the tree protection plan. And on a previous plan, it was indicated that there were three acres, so there's a remaining acre and a half that would need to be planted. And on the current plan, it's indicated that there's provided four and a half acres. So there's just a discrepancy there that we need to work through with the applicant. And then there were some questions by engineering about some required stormwater infrastructure, and the applicant also indicated that he's been in conversations with engineering about that, and he may be able to, since the subdivision committee meeting, so he may be able to give more details on that. So with that, I'll turn it over to you all for questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Do we have an applicant? Good afternoon. Yes, regarding the tree protection plan and the tree inventory plan, that was just a typo from the original amended development plan. That will be corrected. There is no plan, scope of work for new trees or anything. Our only scope of work is, as we showed right here along, which is called their queuing area and the new structure and just restriping for queuing. As for the stormwater item, that was an item that was supposed to be done, my understanding, at the previous or original building and was not taken care of. As Chris mentioned, I have been in contact with engineering. I do have information on that that I've shared with our client, and we are working on getting the proper people engaged and completing that item as indicated. Thank you. And for the record, would you please state your name and who you represent? My name is Todd Mazurek. I represent Progressive Company. Thank you. All right. Do we have any questions? Just a clarification because I may be confusing the stormwater work and the tree plan. The discrepancy of acreage is one issue. Was there supposed to have been planting done first time around that did not get done? Well, theoretically, the data from the previous plan was correct, and their plan was to maintain three acres of trees and then plant an acre and a half of canopy to get to the 4.5. So that's the requirement for their property as a whole in the light industrial zone is 10% of the full property. There's probably a good number of tree canopied areas in the floodplain. We just have to document that those are there. And again, if they planted trees to get towards the 10%, you can now count those as planted and existing canopy. So I think we can get to that somehow, or they will need to plant more trees. Your property owner is still responsible for meeting the ordinance, even if that's not part of your scope of work. Some of the plantings that didn't happen with the Division of Engineering are related to a stormwater water quality feature that they also, again, proposed and was approved by the Planning Commission previously for a wetland area. And my understanding is that the plants have not been planted in the wetland area. So obviously they're not doing the work that we want our wetland plants to do to clean the water for the site. So that needs to be rectified as well. And we have provided that to our client and let them know that that is an outstanding item that needs to be addressed. You will get the additional trees either documented or planted. Is that correct? We will verify that we have a required amount. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Davis. Can you explain how long this project has been in place without having those? Is it been around for a year? Has it been around for 10 years without having the wetlands planted, without having the tree protection just to understand the impact of this and the importance? I would say it's between two years and three years. Thank you. All right. Do we have anything else for the applicant? Mr. Oates. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tricey, speaking to that subject, is there anything condition-wise that – I'll turn it off. Maybe it was on. Am I on now? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. In regards to what we were speaking of, is there a condition that addresses the discrepancy between the original plan and this plan with the trees, tree canopy? Well, it will be covered by the urban forester's approval of the tree preservation plan. And wasn't that supposed to be done on the original plan? So their tree preservation plan should be submitted with the application. And there's been some misunderstanding from the applicant about, you know, only making a change to a small portion of their plant, of the property here in the middle where obviously there was no tree planting. And we communicated to them that they could submit the tree preservation plan from the previous plan. But instead of doing that, they submitted something that basically is a note copied that just changed the statistics to say now there are four and a half acres of trees with no real graphical representation of where those are, which is what the tree preservation plan is. It's a graphical representation of what percentage of your land is covered by the tree canopy or where you're proposing it. So the short of it is you're comfortable with it being on as a sign-off? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. McClure. Well, just a question for staff. Well, first I appreciate you all sort of catching those discrepancies as they sort of come forward. With this proposed amendment, though, with this sort of automated vehicular inspection station, is it just automatic or is there a reason we need all the normal sign-offs like the post service kiosk sign-off and bike, trail, and pedestrian facilities? I'm sort of just curious since it's really just almost like it looks like a car wash thing except with cameras. Really those are just our standard sign-offs that are on every final development plan. And so at the technical committee meeting, our representatives have the option to say I would like to be removed or no, keep me on as a sign-off. I will note the post office has not been attending lately. So it seems like that one could probably be removed since there probably won't be a mail delivery at this new structure. Do we have anything else? Seeing none, thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application today? Please approach the podium and state your name and it is the policy of the Planning Commission to limit public comment to three minutes. My name remains Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road. And I'll be very brief. Since we're laying eyes on this plan, I noticed a note that requires the reservation of a certain piece of land for possible purchase by the LFUCG for a public park. This used to be, of course, Shadybrook Park, Lexmark's Park. And I wonder if there's any progress on that. I think it had a two-year deadline. How far are we on it? Is that still an option? Mr. Chair, I can address that if you'd like. The government looked into that and did not pursue that opportunity. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Do we have any other comment on this particular application? Seeing none, the floor is open for discussion among the Planning Commission or a motion. Mr. McClure. I move to approve PLN MJDP 25-13 Lexmark International Corporation at 1180 Newtown Pike with the removal of recommendation 11 requiring the U.S. Postal Office approval of the kiosk. So that makes the 11 staff recommendations. Oh, I didn't turn it over, sorry, 13 on the back. Second. Okay, thank you, Mr. McClure and Mr. Jonathan Davis seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. And that carries unanimously. Thank you, everyone. So number three would be page nine, PLN MJDP 25-15 Hamburg East. Okay, we're moving forward to PLN MJDP 25-15 Hamburg East, Track 4, the Springs Polo Club. You will also have revised conditions on a green sheet. We have an expansion area master plan report and also a waiver to go with this plan. This property is located off of, we have Manowar Boulevard here, Polo Club is down in this area. We have an apartment complex, then we have Little Herb Way, and then we have, I hate using the word senior housing, or elderly, anyway, we have another apartment complex there. What they're doing is they're proposing 10 buildings with 268 dwelling units, a swimming pool and a clubhouse, and then the adjacent parking that they require. They have one access point here coming in, and this is the terminus of the street, so they asked for a waiver of the terminus, so I will explain that shortly. With this being over 100 dwelling units, their second emergency access point will be here off the side of the property coming up to Manowar Boulevard. So with that, you can see that the revised conditions, the first 12 are typical sign-offs. As I said, we have an expansionary master plan compliance report to note the exactions to the division of planning. We typically do this at the time we're reviewing the plan. At this current time, they are working with a gentleman in our office about the Greenway possible credits, so we want to keep that condition on the plan, provided that the commission grants the waivers that I just listed, and I'll explain those. To note the cabinet slide for the dedication of Little Herb Way, we had a plaque come in just recently because Little Herb Way was dedicated up to the edge of this property, so we just had this little piece right here that needed to be dedicated to bring it to the front of their property. There is a plaque right now being worked on going through our office at this time. Over here along the edge, the eastern side of the property, there's a stormwater detention basin over in this area. It's located between the school, the new school that they're building, and this property. They have proposed an access point down here along the edge to bring them up to get into this detention area. This is a stormwater detention area basin, so there is a record plan at this time also subdividing this portion of the property off. There's a line right here, just barely see that. Subdividing that off of the property to be dedicated with the stormwater detention. This is why we're waiting with the exactions, is because then this changes the exaction totals on the back side. Depict access, location of access to the greenway from the property per Article 23A2G of the zoning ordinance. This right here is a tributary, it's part of the greenway and going up through here connecting into another division up in this area. The reason in the expansion area of all property is to have some form of access into the greenway. At this time, they're currently showing walls and fences and it does not show any access to this greenway. Depict all sidewalks to be five foot in width. They are showing three and a half foot with inside between the buildings, but with our ordinance and with the bike and ped planner, we'd like to see five foot for public safety because it allows you to walk side by side instead of behind one another when you're walking on the sidewalk at three and a half feet. Resolve greenway dedication. This is part of where they're working with the gentleman with the exactions as far as possibly having this portion of the property dedicated to the city for our greenway trail on the property. So that's the development plan. As I said, we have a compliance statement for the Hamburg for substantial compliance with the EAMP. With this, they have to meet several areas of land use, design features, community design and infrastructure element. At this time, after reviewing this with the EAMP, we feel that they meet the density for the zone in this area. There is a pump station that has been installed at the other end of Polo Club Boulevard that will be serving this. And then as I said, Polo Club Boulevard is the arterial where this will be connected to. So we believe they've met that to meet the compliance of the EAMP. But we have one item that is not currently in compliance and that is the plan does not connect to the greenway and that is one of our conditions that we have on the plan. So one of the items we would like to add that for the EAMP report is that the development shall incorporate a connection between the apartments and the greenway on it. So that's condition number 18. Thank you Cheryl. Do we discuss waiver now? I'm getting ready to go to the waiver. I was trying to go through. They submitted a waiver request for the terminus of Brittle Herb Way. It should be, there's a better picture, typically we see a cul-de-sac or a T and they are showing it's stubbing directly into the front end of their property. They say that there's area in there for people to enter into their property and turn around to leave. And so that was their request for a waiver. They also asked for a waiver of sidewalks on Man O' War Boulevard to have sidewalks on either side. Right now the Department of Transportation is working to do some revisions to do along Man O' War. So we're in agreement with the waiver for the sidewalks along Man O' War and for the terminus at Little Herb Way. We are in agreement with that. We feel like that they meet the public safety's health and welfare. So one thing though as far as the conditional for the terminus of the Little Herb Way, we would like to see that at the end of Little Herb Way before entering into their property that they have a concrete two foot wide concrete band going across the road because that way it shows where the public street stops and where you're entering into their property. So that kind of defines for everyone to know where the public street is going into this property. The other, like I said, they asked for the sidewalks to be waived. We did ask that they, let's see, go back here, we have a connection, this connection going from the apartments going up to Man O' War Boulevard. They asked to waive the idea of building a sidewalk, but we feel that that would be, we do not want to waive that because it's for public safety to be able to have access to Man O' War when the improvements come along through the Kentucky Department of Transportation and also that would give you another access point getting into the Greenway and for those that could be coming along Man O' War to get into the Greenway. So we agree with the waiver on Man O' War, but we would rather them continue to install the sidewalk along the access point to Man O' War. So with that I'll ask if there's any other comments or questions. Mr. McClure. Yeah, I have a question on the five foot sidewalk requirement. I see on here for the most part where they've got the sidewalks adjacent to the vehicular parking areas, they're depicting them as six feet. Right, that's for overhang for if your car comes up and overhangs onto the sidewalk. Sure. But then I guess first just through the green space and it's the internal ones like to the front doors that are the three and a half. Well that's where with the zoning ordinance and with the bike and ped planner, he has asked for all sidewalks to be a minimal of five foot. That is what we are proposing throughout the city of Lexington. The idea is to allow people to walk side by side or for allow people coming in two different directions to be able to pass without one having to get off of the sidewalk into the grass. So therefore that is what the city of Lexington is proposing for a five foot sidewalk and why we asked for the five foot sidewalks. Sure. And this is personalizing it a little bit, but you know I live in a house here in an older neighborhood and none of our walkways from the sidewalks are five feet. Some of the sidewalks themselves, most of them aren't, but a few of them might be or as they're redone they are. But you know I've never, I guess I hesitate, I've never felt scared walking through my front yard because my sidewalk was 32 inches, I guess. And so I'm wondering what the, if we don't have any real safety concern on interior sidewalks I wonder why we are. Are you a single family dwelling unit or a multifamily dwelling unit? This is a multifamily dwelling unit and this is something that the city wants to allow people to be able to pass each other on the sidewalk and this is something that our bike and ped planner could probably better explain, but he is not here today. I mean I, this is just my opinion, I see the point along the vehicular area, I really don't. One or two apart, you know a few apartments off of a sidewalk, I don't see it, but that's just me. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Chair. I had a quick question, so the five foot ordinance, does it only pertain to multifamily dwellings or is that going to be for all? It's across the board. The city of Lexington wants to widen the sidewalks for everyone to be able to walk together. So it's not just, the reason it's six foot in front of the parking is for overhang that way because not everybody wants to put the tire stops. So if you put the tire stops then you would have a five foot sidewalk, but if you don't have the tire stops then you have a six foot sidewalk and a lot of people are not using the tire stops anymore. So that's why we want to make sure that there's enough for when a car pulls up, you still have that five foot walk area to get past one another. I'm going to speak to the other side, Governor, just in case of what I see in my neighborhood. I have a number of neighbors who have strollers and a child on a tricycle and a dog in tow and a five foot sidewalk would be very helpful for those folks. Sorry. Alrighty. I think especially the concern that you raised about building sidewalks on both sides of the road all the way up to Man o' War is a very wise thing to do because for the sidewalk that The three and a half foot one at the south of the plan that kind of ends before it ever gets to Man o' War, I think you need to build in the sidewalk accommodations as soon as possible at five feet, not later. Along Man o' War, that's a state road, so we're telling them that we're okay with them not building them at this time because we don't want to have them build it and then have them rip it out to come through, the state come through and rebuild them again. So we're okay with the waiver for having sidewalks on both sides on Man o' War for them not to build them at this time because that being a state road. But as far as internal into the development, we look for the five foot sidewalks for pedestrian flow and access for everyone. I guess I'm speaking just about this plan southeast where there are no sidewalks internally leading up to Man o' War. You're saying you're okay with no sidewalks at this time? For the adjacent property, I don't know about the adjacent property. That's not something we're looking at at this time. We're only looking at this property here. So I thought I was referring to the property in the green at plan southeast. That's not property that they own right now? Yeah, that. Okay, that's their access, their emergency access drive. And this is where we're asking for them to put in a sidewalk along here for them to be able to get up to Man o' War. I apologize. I misunderstood. No, that's fine. I think that is a good thing to have. I agree. That way, if for whatever reason people need to get out of the apartment complex, they want to have some place to walk and not have to walk in the road if emergency vehicles are coming in and out. The sidewalk along the emergency access would be better. Yes. I'm sorry. Misunderstood. Anyone else? All right. Do we have any other questions for Cheryl at this time? Yes, sir, Mr. McClure. Do we have a guideline or a metric for what we would consider over-parked or? Well, we've removed our parking requirements. I don't believe we do at this time. No, sir. Thank you. All right. Anything else for Cheryl? Seeing none. Thank you. Applicant? Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Lexi Goetsch with Continental Properties. Just wanted to start with a few items that were brought up during the staff discussion for the Greenway access point. We did request the trail plans that are proposed at this location. That's why we are not showing a specific location to access the Greenways, because we want to make sure that it's convenient for that future trail. But we did add a note to the plan that we intend to add that access point per condition 18, along with the EAMP compliance letter. Also a note on the sidewalks, they are ADA compliant at three and a half feet, so that's why that's what we're still currently showing. We're having ongoing discussions with Scott Thompson in regard to the five feet width due to some of the significant topographic challenges on the site, where especially on those, where you can see those main arterials between the buildings, we definitely see the merit in expanding those sidewalks. But places where we already have existing retaining walls, it would be great to find some relief to that five foot width. So that's something that he said he would work with us on in the next phase of the process, and was comfortable with us moving forward with the plan, as is obviously pending planning commission approval. And then also just a note to the parking. We try to maintain a company standard of 1.7 parking spots per unit. We've seen that across our portfolio, that is the best for both our residents and for guests to not push parking into any side streets or side structures. So that's some of the rationale behind our parking, to your comment. And I'm here for any questions regarding the waiver, conditions, or overall project, in order to move for approval. Thank you so much. Do we have any questions? Mr. Bickler. Well, I just want to clarify with you, and maybe we can have staff chime in, but the recommendation that is before us today does state depict all sidewalks to be five foot in width. I believe if we were to pass it as that, then that would not leave room for you to negotiate further with Scott. Okay. So that was our understanding in our conversations with him, is that he would have, since it's not stated in the zoning ordinance as of today, that he would have jurisdiction to lessen it in certain places. But is that incorrect? If the planning commission adopts these conditions, and there's a specific condition that requires depicting all sidewalks at five feet, that sort of overrides the flexibility discretion that might come through a sign-off, right? This is saying the commission agrees that that is what's necessary. Understood. So then I guess in that regard, we would move for flexibility, but if that's not open to the commissioners, we would move forward with these conditions? The planning, yes. I was just clarifying with Mr. McClure that the planning commission does have the authority, if they wanted to, to change a condition. So if we could change condition to this subject to the approval of bike and pedestrian, that would be appreciated by the applicant. And Robin, just for my edification, can you just give me the 15-second overview of the point you were making again? Is this just for the internal sidewalks? Well, this says all sidewalks, so my sort of concern, as she sort of noted it, and maybe it's a broader discussion for the ordinance in general, but we're talking about the sidewalks that are like circulation from around the parking lot, but we're also talking about the sidewalk that just goes up to one person's front door. Thank you. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application today, or this plan, I should say? Seeing none, planning commission discussion. Or floor is open for a motion. Well, I hesitate to make the motion on this one just because it really bothers me that we have such an amazing site with a stream and all this woodland, and we pave a huge amount of it with single-layer surface parking, and we don't engage our natural areas on the sound at all. In fact, we fence ourselves off from them. So while I think generally the staff has done a well-researched and rationed approval with the following conditions, this plan does hurt because I think it's planned from above on a computer and doesn't really take into account the natural beauty and the value that they could be offering the residents here in Lexington, and instead we get a whole lot of parking with modular square units dropped right down on top of our bluegrass. I have a question. The fence that Mr. Mickler just referenced, how tall is that proposed to be? Please, and if you could describe not only how tall, but what is it going to look like? The retaining walls do vary in height, but in terms of the decorative fence, that's three and a half feet, and in part due to the topographic challenges. Some of it is for the safety of the residents because of the steep drop off at the back of the site, so I did just want to note that as well in terms of the purpose of the fences on the site. And again, this is the fence that is labeled proposed fence, kind of separating the parking lot from the wetland stream area. So that would be three and a half feet tall? Correct. And how would you describe its style? A decorative fence, a metal decorative fence is probably the best way to describe it. Thank you. Do we have any other discussion? Floor is open. And in addition to the plan, we obviously have the EAMP report and the waiver report. Mr. Wilson? Yeah, we got it. I mean, I can do one of two things. We need to get this on the road here a little bit. I understand the concerns of my colleagues there as such, but I'm sorry, the microphone, I have a challenge with microphones. Anyhow, I'm going to move approval of PLN MJDP 25-15 with the 20 conditions provided by staff. Second. All right, so we have a motion from Mr. Wilson, a second from Mr. Nickel. And this would be for the approval of the plan and the recommendations as presented by staff on our green paper. Absolutely. Okay. So that would still be the five foot sidewalks leading to the buildings? Yes, it would be as presented on the updated staff report. Well, the question is whether to change it. I'd like to leave it as it is. And the reason why is that I've been walking along sidewalks on many occasions where someone who was physically challenged had a wheelchair and I have either had to move off the line or they had felt like they had to move out of line as such. So I think it's a reasonable accommodation with the ADA thoughts in mind. Okay. So we have our motion and a second. Do we have any discussion on the, this is for the plan itself. Ms. Davis. Mr. Chair, I'm looking at the EAMP compliance report for the Springs Polo Club and at the very last bit it says that the staff finds the final development plan for Hamburg East is not currently in substantial compliance with the community design element of the expansion area master plan. It doesn't meet the design feature of connecting the new development to the greenway that's adjacent. And I understand that the greenway plans are not complete, but I completely agree with Mr. sorry, Mickler. Okay. So yes, Judy, well, they have it covered, but to Robin's point, there's a beautiful greenway. It totally turns its back on it. And there's, if there's challenging topography rather than building, it seems it's not being responsive to the landscape as Mr. Mickler has said. I think it could be better. Thank you. Do we have any, yes, sure. Just in regard to the usability of the greenway also would like to point out that it is in the FEMA floodplain. So there is an entire federal process that would go into impacting it. So it is more than just a trail to it from our point of view, that some of it is undevelopable or unusable because of that floodplain that is present on the site. So that was also brought into play for our decision making. Unusable as a place to build something, but it's certainly very usable in terms of an amenity to that site and the multiple people who will be living there. And I would think that it would be something that would be enticing to those who would consider living there is having a way to access that greenway. It's an amenity, it's not something to be avoided and turn your back on because it's not great for building something, in my opinion. And I understand that. I think some of it is also with the safety of even getting down to that area, you would have to make some impacts to it. And so with the trail that is proposed to go in, we would certainly like to connect to it for our residents and for future residents, but in terms of usability at this point, would not pursue it. And pointing out that it is zoned as high density residential at this point as well, so we are trying to be in accordance with the expansion area for that, too, which we would fall under if we were to utilize more of the space or impact that floodplain. And just a follow-up question, so on the plan where it has three and a half feet wide sidewalk at the bottom of the plan, is then the plan for you to talk with the pedestrian and bike coordinator to say why you think it needs to stay three and a half feet or is that going to change to five feet? We can change it to five feet if that is the opinion of the commission to not change that condition. Our idea behind some flexibility was given the sanitary easement that is planned south on this site to leave it as three and a half feet and once again pointing out that it is ADA compliant, so it wouldn't be going around any federal regulations or anything of that nature, so that was why we were asking for the flexibility. It does not sound like planning commission will move to accept a revised condition, so we can be amenable to extending all to five feet. Thank you. All right. Do we have any more comments or questions? Mr. McClure. This comment is not going to be answered in the hearing today, but as we move forward, the numbers on the stats tell us a lot about our priorities and we have 177,000 square feet on the vehicle use area and we have 140,000 square feet for buildings, so we are taking more space for cars than we are for buildings on this. And then when we look at the usable open space, not the area they are not allowed to do anything in, we see the numbers dwindle even more. So figuring out a way that as our scale and our developments increase in these expansion areas, figuring out a way that we utilize and honor our space in a way that doesn't give so much space to the cars and the parking seems paramount to me as we develop, as we allow development in the bluegrass. Mr. Nickel. Yes, I've got a comment on that. We've gone through a long process of trying to encourage development of multifamily housing. We are in a housing crisis. That's what led us to considering expanding the urban service area. We expanded the urban service area by 2,800 acres, which was the minimum requested by the council. So our goal now, in my opinion, is to develop as many dwelling units as we possibly can. As we're looking at this site here, putting 268 dwelling units on this property is fantastic. That is a great thing. Of the 268 dwelling units, the purchaser of the property identified that in order for those units to be marketable, they needed 1.7 parking spaces per unit. So their request for parking, which is not in any way within our purview at the moment since we removed the requirements for parking, that's outside of our purview. The market is demanding 1.7 units to get the buyer to finance the property and develop the 268 dwelling units. We cannot, it's not economically feasible to do parking garages in these types of developments or the housing themselves become unaffordable, not just with big A affordable housing or even little A affordable housing. What I'm saying is there's a lot of pieces in the puzzle that need to be met. We've got an applicant that is a buyer that is now putting in 268 dwelling units and has met all the requirements of our planning and zoning ordinance and that's how we got to a revised approval by the staff. So I think we need to keep our eye on the ball of 268 dwelling units and I also think it's important for us to understand we would like to see the perfect developments but we are not in the position to design projects for owners of the property. So I commend the applicant for putting in 268 dwelling units. I commend the applicant for the foresight in understanding that the connection to the greenway that is proposed can't be planned until the proposed greenway is submitted. They're willing and able to connect their property while seeing, I would assume that's because they're seeing it as a benefit to the tenants themselves. So once again I'd just like to commend the applicant and I uphold my second on this motion. Thank you. I have a technical question. On the plan and in the presentation we talked about the six foot sidewalks along the parking areas and yet in the revised staff report it says to depict all sidewalks to be five foot in width. Do we need to note that that does not? It should be a minimum of five feet. The concern was the three and a half foot sidewalks that in our community we have consistently said does not meet ADA requirements. So five feet does. We know five feet does because it allows for two people to pass, it allows for people to turn around. So yes, a minimum of five feet. Okay. Mr. Wilson, would you be comfortable, I mean if that's the case, would you be comfortable amending your motion to revising number 19 to be a minimum of five feet to cover those sidewalks along the parking areas that they are proposing to be six feet? Yes, I would be. Okay. Mr. Nickel, are you okay with that amendment to Mr. Wilson's? I believe that's within our ordinance, it's five feet or greater, is that correct? So I'm going to comply with what the ordinance said and uphold my second. Okay. So that would now depict all sidewalks to be a minimum of five feet in width. Just clarifying. Okay. Okay. Do we have any more comments or questions regarding Mr. Wilson's amended motion? Yeah, I'd just like to add to the discussion a little bit that this is the plan that's been presented, it's in compliance. I think for the challenge for us as the Planning Commission is to do what you suggested, Robin, is this is a bigger issue, it's a longer term issue in terms of this is a good development, how can we move toward the best development, how can we move, you and I have talked about this, the best parking lots, there are a lot of ways to improve in that we need to take this on as something that we do in conjunction with the development community to see how all of us can get even better. All right. Are we ready to put that to a vote? Yes. Any objection to that? All right. That's what we'll do. Okay. So the plan passes 8-1 with one abstention. Do we do? Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have two waivers I'd like to... Yes. Is that appropriate for you? I was going to say, do we do not take a vote on the EAMP findings? We do? Okay. I'm sorry. All righty. We'll entertain a motion on the EAMP compliance report, I guess acceptance of it. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, we'll move for the acceptance of the, what do you call it, EAMP report. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second by Mr. Nickel. Any discussion? We'll put that to a vote as well. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And then we have our waivers. Two waivers. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the waiver number one, approval of the requested waiver of 6-8 Little Herb Way termination, Manowar Boulevard sidewalks with the three conditions, with the four conditions, three elements and one condition provided by staff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second by Mr. Nickel. This is the first waiver request regarding the Little Herb Way termination and Manowar Boulevard sidewalks. Any discussion? None. We'll take a vote. All right, that carries nine with one abstention. Ms. Davis. Yes, we have one other. Yes, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to put this in the positive, which is what is recommended by parliamentary procedure and say that I recommend that we approve of the staff's recommendation for disapproval of the waiver article or waiver for a sidewalk connecting for the following reasons and the reasons that are provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Nickel, thank you. And this is, again, affirming the staff's recommendation for disapproval of the waiver for a sidewalk connecting for the following reasons. Any discussion? Seeing none. All righty, that carries unanimously. Thank you. And I believe that takes us all the way back to the beginning, page two, letter A, PLN-MJDP-2410 Distillery District. All right, we have looked at this plan before, PLN-MJDP-2410, the Distillery District West Unit 1. This was previously continued, and at the time, some of the commission members felt that the applicant should come back with a different plan. And then they postponed a couple of times for different reasons, but we have not had a revised plan submitted for this. This is, if you all remember, this is along Manchester Street, just west of the railroad track and where I believe Thompson Road comes in. And this is Town Branch along the plan south. The area of this amendment was for a proposed U-Haul rental facility. There's a proposed structure and associated parking. The applicant did indicate in an email to staff that the owner has agreed to remove the trailers and only bring the trailers to the site to deliver to the customers when they rent. But, as I said, we haven't seen a revised plan for this since the continuance. And with that, I'll open it up to you all for questions, comments. And I will say that the concerns that we had before were that the proposed storage in the floodplain was kind of the main concern we had before and why that prompted the continuance. So may I speak, Mr. Chair? I haven't seen this until now. I apologize. That's true. Yes. So it's new information. So can you just help me to understand, they are proposing asphalt surface parking in the floodplain? Correct. Truly in the floodplain, not just... Correct. In the floodway. This line here indicates the floodway and then the stream is down here. So this area between that boundary and the stream would indicate where the floodway is. How can that be allowed? Is that allowable? So there are some improvements that are allowed in the floodplain. Typically, a surface parking lot can be permitted if you're not grading the property to do it. Not grading, did you say? Yeah. Not grading. Not changing the elevation of the property. In this case, there's been surface parking proposed and approved on this area. What is new today on this plan is that red structure for U-Haul and in order to construct that, they do need an appeal to the floodplain appeals committee. And then the floodplain appeals committee would evaluate if allowing for fill and building a structure meets their criteria. This particular piece of property is entirely in the floodplain. So we have to be careful about taking someone's ability to use their property away from them. So that's really the purpose of the floodplain appeals committee to evaluate how can this property potentially have some use without impacting the floodplain. But as Chris mentioned and we've told the applicant numerous times, you cannot store equipment in the floodplain. Which means overnight storage of U-Haul trucks and trailers, pallets, mulch, all of those things, it doesn't matter where you are, you cannot store those. You cannot put those in the floodplain. Are there any measures on here to capture runoff from the asphalt parking lot before it reaches the town branch? I think the applicant is probably the best to address that. Would any measures be required to prevent, to allow the capture of those kinds of nasty stuff from parking lots before it gets into town branch? So there are water quality measures required by the stormwater manual and then water quantity measures. My understanding as a planner, not an engineer, is that when you are adjacent to a floodplain or a creek, the quantity needs to just get to the creek rather than hold it first. But the quality does need to be treated before it goes in. So the applicant, and again developers do this routinely over town, is providing both water quality and quantity, but quality especially when it's next to the creek. So they would be able to tell you where those improvements would be installed on the site. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may, let me follow up, Tracy, when that discussion just started, you mentioned floodway. There's a difference, I believe, between floodway and floodplain. Everything you talked about was floodplain. The floodway is obviously closer to the creek? Yeah, the floodway is the area where you would expect water to be moving during a flooding event. And the floodplain, it's rising, but it's not actually moving. So what would be allowed in this use in the floodway? Nothing is allowed in the floodway. Thank you. Again, that's where the Floodplain Appeals Committee, you can make an appeal to them. Just a final, sorry, I beg your pardon, go ahead. I'm just going to state maybe the obvious question, which is, they're already storing trucks in that gravel parking lot, and I guess the information that no truck storage is allowed didn't seem to shake them so far. So what makes us think that if they have a really nice paved spot to store trucks, that they're all of a sudden going to stop? So I think the enforcement of Article 19 at the moment was put on hold because they were working on a development plan. But they have been notified first that they needed to remove the trailer that they were temporarily occupying for much longer than six months from the floodplain, and they have done that. My understanding is it's been moved. But they do continue to park vehicles there. I don't know that our enforcement partners, I guess I would say, have the capacity to go out daily and require tractors or trucks or trailers to be moved consistently, which is, again, I think part of the issue. We just need to say no to that element of it. There's an allowance for a structure to be built and a retail use and rental of things. But the problem here is what they want to rent and store on their site. I don't know if I have a lot of confidence. Well, Tracy, I guess my question is, if the business model was that these were being stored off-site and that the person would come in and then they would bring the U-Haul and trailer over, then we would really be looking at more of like a pick-up and drop-off line rather than a line of 20 or maybe, I guess, closer to 30 storage bays. And so what they're proposing doesn't align with temporary. The 28 storage bays is not someone's here to pick up one of their 28 things, let's bring it over. I guess the plan doesn't match that business model. I guess that's where I'm hesitating. And I think, as Chris mentioned, we got the emails since the last time this application was before you indicating that they agreed not to park trailers there, but didn't agree to not park trucks. But even though we have that in writing, their plan didn't change. To your point, it is lagging behind the commitment to not have the trailers there. I guess in their estimation, they could still have trucks, which again, planning and engineering has expressly stated numerous times that the ordinance and FEMA do not allow the storage of equipment and vehicles in the floodplain. I would expect their plan should change because of that limitation. Do we have anything else? Mr. Penn. If I remember right, this is the plan that they were going to have a guardrail up to keep from washing in the creek. We talked about that. The nuts and bolts of it is if the water gets higher than two feet, it's going to get in their wheelbarrows. That's what's going to limit the situation is how deep the water is. Let's just talk about what it is here. It's a storage place for vehicles. That's just what it is. I don't want to ask the applicant about that, but that's what we're looking at. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Do we have anything else for Chris at this moment? All right. Seeing... Yes, David. Hold on just one second. There was one other item we wanted to discuss was the installation of sidewalks along the frontage. I think Scott and I both had them in our comments, but I don't know if we've really... The floodplains really have been the main part of discussions. We haven't really talked about it, but I just wanted to take this opportunity as well to bring it up. Are sidewalks noted in our conditions? Do we have sidewalks? Because I'm not... I don't think seeing a sidewalk on the... Item number seven is our bike and pedestrian planner approval of trails and pedestrian facilities. Thank you. Okay. Applicant. Yes. Mr. Chairman, for the record, this is Jihad Hallani with Vision Engineering. Just a little bit of recap. This site is a very unique site. This is distillery district. There's a lot of businesses on that site. There's five or six-story building has been there for a long time, and there's a lot of restaurant, businesses, and most of them, if not all, they operate in the floodplain. But historically, that site has been there. So what we're proposing here today is basically the parking lot that's... We are... The footprint of this development is the existing gravel parking lot. And gravel from zoning ordinance and from stormwater is considered as impervious area. So basically, this is impervious area. So what we are showing over here is basically adding a lot of interior landscaping. There will be a lot of trees. There will be reduction in impervious area. From the steps that we are proposing here, so that building is going to be elevated above the floodplain. So this will be maybe the only building above the floodplain on that distillery district. And it's going to be two feet above the floodplain. And then the process, what we are planning, how we're going to achieve that process is basically the first step is to go to FEMA through a CLOMR process. And that CLOMR process, it has to be signed by engineering. The floodplain coordinator has to sign that form in order for us to proceed to CLOMR. And part of the CLOMR we're going to have obtaining permit from probably from the Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife for Endangered Species. Assuming FEMA agree with our number and calculation, then we have to go to the second step is going to be, as Ms. Wade mentioned, is going to be the floodplain appeal committee. Assuming they agree on that process, then the third step is going to get a special use permit from Division of Engineering before we even put the shovel into the ground or do anything. So we, since the last meeting, the reason the plan has not changed because we are thinking about adding a note specifying, stating that no trailer will be parked overnight or for extended periods. So basically the plan is somebody order online or call for reservations, I reserve a trailer, I deliver the trailer on site. So as for the guardrail, the guardrail is not the intent of the guardrail to, it's basically the main intent of the guardrail is for safety reason. And the reason I'm saying that is because sometimes, you know, there's ice or anything in the winter, some cars slide, there's no protection from being into Town Branch Creek. So it's also serving as a safety reason in addition. And for the floodplain, that floodplain has been studied by me when I did in 2014 working for the city on this loamer application from basically Rapparino all the way to New Circle Road. And we took that process from floodplain was much higher in that location, at least three feet higher, has been dropped by elevation approximately to three feet in that location. And that process we took it from, again, from Rapparino area all the way to New Circle Road, which led to significant drop in the floodplain elevation at Rapparino drop almost six feet and New Circle Road almost close to one feet. And this was done in 2015. So what I'm trying to say here is that there is an existing parking lot, has been running for as a parking lot for a long time. And that parking lot, it's a gravel parking lot compacted in stone, which is served as impervious area. And otherwise, by the zoning ordinance, we're not allowed to have a gravel parking lot. So that's what we are proposing, the pavement, and we are adding the interior landscaping to it. There's other business on that corridor within, actually if you zoom out of the development plan, you can see the other businesses, other restaurants, other things in that area where people come and spend time there. They leave, some of them leave, some of them maybe small amount, they leave their car overnight. And some of the restaurants has gates, emergency gates, for when the creek reach certain elevations they have to put their flood gates. And every restaurant, I mean. So basically this is in general looking at 30,000 feet, how does it look like. The trailer, we decided to remove the trailer because there was a lot of discussion in the previous meetings that trailer are light structure, it can be floated, and then move away from the creek. So as part of the floodplain appeal committee, what we are planning to do is provide engineering calculations that the truck will not, for a hundred year storm event, it's not going to be floating and washing away from the site. So this, we know the floodplain elevation, we know the speed of the water, we know the depth of it, so this is something that can be calculated. And if there's any question, I'll be glad to answer it. Thank you. Ms. Davis. Mr. Halani. Yes, ma'am. Could I ask you a couple of questions? I'm not sure if this is appropriate, so you can tell me no, but are you in touch with the owner of the property, I assume you are since you are, he is your client, to let him know that the city has concerns about overnight parking there already? Yes, ma'am, they are aware of that, and that's why they were here in the previous hearing. When we had the hearing last time, they were here, so they are aware of that. Okay. And that's why I decided to remove trailer, because the main discussion, if my memory is correct, or I understand it correctly, was the trailer is a light structure, it can float easily. Uh-huh. So they decided, they said, well, we will not park any trailer on site. Okay. So I guess questions two and three are, why, if you don't plan to park anything overnight, or the client doesn't plan to park anything overnight, is there so much parking? And then part of that also is, what are the water quality controls that you plan to put in place? Yes, ma'am. So to answer the question, first one, let's start with the easy one, the water quality. The water quality, it can be prefabricated devices, which is allowed by the stormwater ordinance, and by the stormwater manual, basically, they treat what we call the first flush. So anything, any rain less than 1.2 inch, all this runoff will be going into that structure, and that structure will treat the runoff before draining into town branch. The second question is that the reason our confusion is about, or I don't want to say it makes no sense, because a storm event can happen any time. It can happen during morning, it can happen at night, and that's why it makes no sense a lot for us, why overnight, because, you know, a storm event, if the problem is a storm event, it can be any time. So it's not like overnight only happens in a storm event. So that's the thing that makes too much sense to us. But again, it's not like if the Planning Commission agree for us to move forward on this plan, which is what we are suggesting, is that no certification of this development plan will be done until we get the FEMA approval, the CLOMER approval, until we get the Flood Plan Appeal Committee approve the plan, at that time this plan gets certified. But for us, we cannot move forward one more step without submitting for FEMA approval, and engineering does not feel comfortable signing the application, if I understand correctly, of the FEMA application without the Board, the Planning Commission, make some kind of recommendation. But again, I guess maybe the basic question is, why do you have so much parking? Is that going a concern? Is there going to be the need for? Hundreds of parking spaces every day? Yes, ma'am. From a U-Haul business model, we only need, if I'm looking at the screen, there will be the top right side of the screen. So the building, the parking around it, and the right side. Everything else, I believe, it's serving what's existing right now, because there's a shortage of parking in the distillery district. And people sometimes park on Manchester Street, sometimes they park somewhere else. So that parking is going to be serving existing businesses already there. So out of the goodness of your client's heart, they're building free parking for others to use? They own the whole area. It's not only that area. So they own the whole area. If your client feels so inclined to build parking for the whole area, could he not pull it farther away from Town Branch and the floodway? Again, ma'am, if you look at the edge of the parking lot right now, that's existing right now, gravel parking area. Yeah, pervious, as opposed to impervious, which is what you're going to be building. Well, compacted from zoning ordinance, compacting gravel is considered impervious area. So I mean… A pervious area, right? No. Or you're saying impervious. Impervious. Okay. So compacting stone or gravel from the subdivision, from the stormwater manual is considered as impervious area. Similar to concrete, similar to asphalt, similar to any impervious area. So if we need to move the driving aisle, you're saying 20 feet to create more buffer. This is something, and then you allow us to move forward with the planning. I believe there will be an agreement with that. So you're willing to move the parking, the drive aisle at Plan South to the north so that you have more of a buffer between town branch and the parking itself? Yes, ma'am. I will be willing to move it 24 feet, the driving aisle, to plant some trees, some vegetation, and we'll be glad to do that. Because it sounds like the reason for the parking isn't necessarily for the building in red. It's for the rest of the entire development. Well, it's just somebody, they have a business over there, they are short in parking. So basically to maximize the parking for their site and for the others. Okay. So do you have statistics that say how close this parking will be to other businesses so that we can see how likely it is it will be used by others and not for parking by your company? I will just interject that the distillery district was approved, I would say maybe 12 years ago. More than that, yes. You think so? And this has always been suggested for parking for the entire area, and it does get used, I would say most days that are active down there. Probably not on a Tuesday afternoon, but certainly on Friday, Saturday, Sundays, there is absolutely parking happening over here and in the gravel area for the pizza place and the Mexican restaurant and the ice cream parlor and the bars. Then it sounds like for a lot of reasons, if you can pull the parking away from Town Branch, you have an impervious surface that you say you will treat the quality for, that we have a lot of steps, a lot of things that we want to make to improve the site. Yes, ma'am. We'll be willing to move the driving aisle 24 feet away and remove the gravel and put trees as improved the riparian corridor around Town Branch as well, but the only thing we cannot move is just the entrance over there. I don't know if, on top of my head, if there is any entrance on the other side that needs to be lined up. It's not. It's not. Okay. That's the only thing. Okay. We can move it 24 feet. Yes, ma'am. Lovely. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. New. Yes. Mr. Helani. We're talking about the rights of the property owner, which is your client. You've identified that this whole parking structure is for the overall development, the one, two, three, four buildings in the development. Why would you consider conceding 24 feet of parking for the planning commission that's looking to develop or to design the project when you've met all the approvals? Why are we here at this point where you're right now willing to make a concession that's not in the benefit of your client or yourself? Yes, sir. I agree. I just, we need to move. I mean, my client's so eager to move forward and this has been in the same zone for a long, long time. I mean, we feel like anything better than nothing. So but if we, if... So we're here at a point where we're trying to design your project and you're now saying anything's better than nothing. So this is extremely frustrating, being a part of the planning commission, sitting here where we've got a property owner that has rights of the property that's looking to put into development, whether we agree with it or not. It meets all the requirements of planning and zoning, meets all the requirements that are necessary to achieve a recommendation of approval. I think we're way out of line trying to design a project that is meeting all the approvals and I think it's important for those that own property to stand up for the rights of the property because those are written into law. That these are the rights of the property owner and we should not be so quickly to defer the rights for the, I agree with you, for the needs of the planning commission that are not based upon anything other than anything that is objective. So we're getting back into this stage of objective versus subjective and you've met all the requirements. I would consider not giving up the rights of the applicant to get this thing. moving through. We need to get the project done well, and if you meet all the requirements, we should be in a position where we can approve projects. And if not, after July we'll be able to approve projects. So please consider that recommendation for the rights of the property owner and the project overall. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. One thing I failed to mention, thank you, Bruce, is that we did a drainage study, and it was a very detailed drainage study. It has been submitted to engineering. Engineering gave us comment. We addressed it and told us they feel comfortable for us to move forward to this level. So they did not approve it, but they did not reject it because it's contingent, I believe it's contingent on the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission gives us the authority to move forward, and again, if you give us the authority to move forward, it's not like this plan is approved. They're going to be conditioned. There will be no certification on this development plan until we get approval from FEMA, we get approval from US Fish and Wildlife, and you get approval from the Corps of Engineers, approval from the Floodplain Appeal Committee, and the Special Use Permit. So you can see how many steps we have to go through in order to move forward. But it's all hinging on this approval today. So if there's no approval today, we cannot move forward. If the Board decided to make no action, it's going to stay here in the same position. And that site again has been used for many, many years as a parking. It has been like that for a long, long time. Mr. Penn, did you have anything? Yes. Being as I was one of the people that objected to this the last time around, I thank you for taking the trailers out, because if you have a flood, the trailers pile up against the guardrail, then you're going to impede the flow of water, and you're going to impede what's happening there. I think that your clomer, when you get your clomer, you're going to know what you need to do. And we can't sit here and guess what they're going to say. We have to trust the clomer that you all will abide by what the clomer tells you, and you do the best thing you can do. We can't design your project for you. The reason I felt the trailers were done, because I have a farm on Elkhorn Creek, and I know what happens to things when water gets up. If people leave their cars parked there and a flash flood comes along, they won't do it again, because it will burn their wheel bearings. Your guardrail, in my opinion, was to stop the trailers from floating in the creek. If you don't put the trailers there, I don't have a concern about that, because the cars aren't going to wash in the creek, you know, if you get water that high. So that was my concern, and you've addressed that. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant, do we have any members from the public who would like to comment today? If so, please just approach the podium and state your name, and everybody has three minutes for their comment. My name is Zina Merkin. I'm a member of Town Branch Trail, Inc., a local non-profit that's been looking at this site for a long time. I'm also a landscape architect, so I know something about these things. Nobody said how much fill is going in here, which will affect the flow of the water. I went down to the site on Friday during the rain. It wasn't the height of the flood peak. One of the things I've noticed is they've piled up a bunch of stone along the bank, which I presume is not permitted. This crane has been sitting there for a long time, along with that, I don't know what, storage building or dumpster or something. This is the sanitary sewer that bisects the site, and it's not permitted. Which is kind of humped up. It seems like they would probably, to use that, I think that's where the green area that was one-third of the way over, I think that covers over. This is, again, the U-Haul. The parking lot was four or five inches deep at that end, and somebody had scooped a channel to drain that off into the creek. All up and down along the creek, there are some quire things to kind of reduce what might flow in. Next slide, please. Again, more informal ways of trying to protect the bank or else protect patrons from walking over the edge. Landscaping would take care of that sort of thing. Next. And this is downstream. This is where Manchester goes over the creek, and this is below, the creek had already started coming down again, and there's not a lot of freeboard there. And this also was a steady rain, but it wasn't a deluge. I've seen summer thunderstorms that have put down two or three inches in an hour, and that's why I'm concerned about filling the floodplain. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Sure. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road, and I do appreciate very much all the time that you're spending and care that Commission has given for a very difficult and challenging site, one that was very ambitious, that had really high goals and aims, and it needed three things, three criteria to be an adaptive reuse project, and one of them was a funding source, and they had that TIF. It was a very bad time, and they weren't able to use the TIF, and it was voided. It was taken away. And so this is a tough site. I'm asking you, though, at this point, it really, I would be grateful to see you pull the plug on this plan and vote disapproval. And the reason is that it hasn't advanced at all. In your several reviews of it, you've had two subdivision committees, you've had, this is a continuance of the hearing, and it's the same plan with improvisations. And the prior plan, which was quite, quite similar, was withdrawn, and I don't think it serves the public and our welfare to give a lot of time and care to something that's not planned yet. And so I'm asking you to vote disapproval. I will say that in 21-6, a development plan is to have, in 9 and 10, storm drainage areas, floodplains, conceptual drainage controls, and stormwater retention, and any other designated environmentally sensitive or geologic hazard areas. These are to be, these are contents of the plan, they're to be represented on the plan. Proposed and existing easements for utilities and other purposes. Some really big things are missing. In Article 19, there has to be a CLOMR submitted, the application for the letter to revise the map. You have a plan here, and the engineer saying it's planned to raise the elevation under the building by two feet. I'm still not clear how or whether the elevation of the parking, the vehicle use area, is to be raised or not. This plan doesn't show you the floodplain boundaries as they will be when the planned material is built. Lots of things will need technical oversight following an approval of the planning commission. I get that. But this plan doesn't seem to have any of those big things already walked through and assured. I really think you should see the CLOMR application. I think you should see the CLOMR application approved by engineering. And engineering has told you the plan does not meet the floodplain regulation. It will require an appeals process to override the zoning ordinance. The shorthand is the zoning ordinance. It will require an appeals process to override the zoning ordinance. The shorthand is it doesn't meet the zoning ordinance as presented to you. I urge you to. Thank you for the time. Do we have any other public comment on this plan? Seeing none, the applicant, do you have anything to add? We are not raising the parking lot. The only thing that is going to be raised is the footprint of that building. It's going to have a retaining wall around it. And then there will be a handicap path, ADA path, into the store. And then final comment is when this plan was approved earlier, it was approved for parking in that area, knowing that CLOMR needs to be submitted to the planning commission. I have one more question. I notice there is no sidewalk on Manchester Street. I gather, to Commissioner Nichols' point, you may appear to have suddenly made a give on this. But I assume it's something you've been talking about with your client for a long time. And you must have reached some kind of agreement before you had this meeting that there were certain things we could talk about. So I understand that your owner owns the property. But I feel like we also have the right as citizens to look out for the public health, safety and welfare as much as we can. So thank you for being willing to concede or agree to some of our concerns. This is a question for staff. Actually for Ms. Wade, I believe. I'm looking at the testimony from our last hearing. And just in terms of the sequence of events, I'm not saying that I agree with it or that makes sense to me. But am I correct that engineering cannot sign off on a request for a CLOMR unless a development plan has been submitted? Is that correct? That is the approach that they have taken, I think, since Director Burton has been here. He has indicated he wants the assurance that a plan for a piece of property is ready, that the Commission has accepted that plan on its face, and that it will be signed off on a CLOMR. I don't have a plan for a CLOMR, but then he would sign off for something to move to the next stage. Someone just coming in and saying I want to fill my property and I don't have a plan, he has not been willing to sign off on a CLOMR for that. All right. This is the time for any further discussion. All right. Mr. Nichol. I'll make a motion to approve PLN-MJDB-24-10, Distillery-Jurisdict West, Unit 1, with the Subdivision Committee's recommended approval and the subdivision's recommended approval. I'm just making a point that this would not be a CLOMR, which would have to be approved by the subdivision. I'm not making a point of updating 20 conditions that we see here, but also making a point that nothing gets built until it gets the appropriate approvals from all the parties that are associated with this. Thank you. I feel that I'm not sure that, I mean, logically to me, staff has it correct, which is that a business should not be storing vehicles in a floodway as course of normal daily operations. And the plan before us, regardless of any conditions, shows us a business that intends to store vehicles in a floodway. And so the way this is drawn to me suggests the business operation, not in keeping with what is recommended by staff. And so at the moment, I'm a no on this. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Hearing this for what appears to be several months, my concern is floodway and not floodplain, recognizing that they are proposing a building with a with a Comer approval, floodplain approval and so forth. I'm okay with that. It's the storage of trucks and trailers. They're saying no trailers, but they do have low profile trucks. We just saw a picture of a conline van that's rentable, containers, storage, various things that's going to impede water. That's what I've got a problem with. And storing it in a floodway is definitely a problem. And at this time, I'm going to go with Mr. Mickler and I would have to vote no. Thank you, Mr. Owens. All right. Well, if we don't have any further discussion, we can certainly put that motion to a vote and see where we land. Three. That motion fails. Three in the affirmative. Six negative. One abstention. The floor is open for another motion. Five minutes to consult the staff. Or if it would be helpful, we can certainly, it's been two hours, we can certainly take a five or ten minute recess to discuss with staff. All right. Without objection, let's do a ten minute recess. All righty. Our recess has ended and we will reconvene. Mr. Nichols' motion most recently failed. Does anyone have another motion? Mr. Owens? Mr. Chair, I do. And let me say this. I expressed my concern just a few moments ago, not only about, more so about Floodway than Floodplain, but both are very much impacted. And I think we've had this discussion, I know for, it seemed like a year, even though it's been just a couple of months, and the concerns were expressed last time. And I'm pretty sure I made a motion to continue this to try and give the applicant a chance to make some revisions to where it could possibly be approved. That has not happened. So, in regards to plan MJDP 24-10 Distillery District West, Unit 1, I move for disapproval of the final development plan for the following reasons. A, the plan facilitates a use, outdoor storage of equipment and vehicles that is prohibited in the floodplain by Article 19. B, the proposed level of development presents a threat to public health, safety, and welfare due to its location in a FEMA floodway and floodplain. And C, further intensification of development of this site increases the risk of damage to property, which outweighs the benefits in this case. So moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Second by Ms. Mollie Davis. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. Okay, that motion carries seven ayes, two nays, one abstention. Thank you. Is that all for us today? All right, our final item is on agenda, page 11. This is a continuation of our discussion on PLN ZOTA 25-1. And Tracy Jones, since this is a continuation, can we just refresh ourselves as to the rules on comment? I mean, we heard public comment during our last hearing on this. During this one, what are our parameters? Well, we've talked about this a little bit. I don't believe that the chair closed the hearing last time. Although it ended with you all's discussion amongst yourselves for a lengthy period of time, I don't think it was limited or closed just to that. So to the degree that you are going to be discussing this, you can still hear additional public comment, but I would just encourage everyone in the room to not repeat the same things that you already spent hours on last time and just consider. There have been some additional comments. The staff is going to be responding to those as well as going over some tweaks that have been made. So you can hear those and we can go from there. Okay, that's reasonable. Thank you. All right, Daniel. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. Just as we kind of launch back into this, since we last met in these chambers, staff has provided you all with a revised version of the text dated 4-8-25, a summary, a little one pager of those corresponding edits, as well as just a general summary that was really responding to some of the larger themes of feedback that we have heard from you all as a commission and wanted to thank you all for the comments and the insight that you all have provided during the process. Rather than go through the whole presentation again, I was just going to briefly go through the items more or less on this one pager here of the tweaks that we have made since we last spoke and then obviously available for public comment and then would be willing to go through each individual section, address any outstanding comments, changes, concerns, etc. and kind of work through the list in that function. Without sort of any further ado, the first changes that we made to Article 1 once again were a couple of clarity things. It was highlighted to us when we talk about our assisted living facility. We talked about a facility in the sense of the buildings themselves and then facilities more or less as far as units. We are making a small tweak there to clear that up. Once again, no real functional difference in the definition, just a clarity edit. With respect to drive-throughs, once again on the same page of page 2, we realized that once we had initially we had set separate standards for single lane and multi-lane drive-throughs, but as we sort of got feedback from the public, feedback from the commissioners, those were eventually removed and so essentially in the ordinance there is not really a distinction where a distinction between a single lane and a multi-lane drive-through is present anymore. We just defined drive-through facility and then we have standards that apply regardless of whether it's one lane, multiple lanes, and we're not legislating them any differently. When we get to Article 9, one of the things that fell through the cracks when we were looking at items that sort of had this built-in discretionary review when it comes to private streets. As a part of that, the applicant will be able to request private streets in sort of conformance with the subdivision regulations. It won't be anything that you all are weighing on individually unless it needs a waiver. Moving on to Article 12, there was some discussion internally from staff when we talked about transit shelters. There's one required, but we talked about what happens if there's already one in the vicinity and those connections are available. Essentially, a development, a new development with a B6P would have to provide a transit shelter. However, if there's one in the existing vicinity there, as outlined, that would not be needed. So, just kind of clearing up so we don't have duplicitous elements, duplicative rather, not duplicitous. Article 16, just talking about the procedure. If the applicant is not able to meet the stacking requirement, specifying that that just goes through the waiver process and clarifies kind of where that ability to modify that would come from. With Article 16, another one of the edits was kind of specifying what we were talking about when we're talking about impeding through movement. We're talking about organizing those facilities so that they're not blocking sidewalks and then allowing pedestrians to navigate as is sort of intended. Article 16, there was just a grammatical edit in Section K that needed to be changed. And then there was the concept that had sort of been brought up by members of the public as well as some questions, I believe, from the Planning Commission about when you are required to kind of update parking lots when you have and this is specifically referring to parking that's backing out into the roadway. The current language or the language that we had was talking about if you had a zone change, you had to bring that into compliance. And if you made an addition to the structure, you had to bring that into compliance. There were comments that we received of, well, what scalar scope is that appropriate? And so to kind of clarify that, to talk about kind of when that would be appropriate, we set a threshold of 30%. That's that same threshold we see later on in Article 18 talking about when you need to make larger scale improvements to landscaping and other nonconforming elements. So once again, kind of quantifying that so it's not just any addition at all to the building suddenly means you need to bring all of that up into compliance. Article 21, this was a change we had discussed during the last meeting but hadn't made it into that version of the text. Staff had wrote some appeals language, but with the consultation of legal, they asked that it be removed and that the current process remain. So that would be stricken through. And then moving on to Article 21, there were some questions about the waiver process and whether it was a list. And if that list was going to specify all the things that could be waived and if it wasn't on the list, it couldn't. We were actually flipping that around. So essentially, this provides greater flexibility to the applicants. The list of things that could potentially be waived is extremely large. So really, we are saying what can't be waived, what should be waived, what should not be waived, what should not be waived. And that list of things that could potentially be waived is extremely large. So really, we are saying what can't be waived, what needs to go through a separate process, and then everything else would follow through the process that we outlined in the rest of Article 21. Once again, just clarifying, when we're talking about waivers, it's just sticking to the notice that it's only for waivers. So we thought with or modification in there that folks may think that that would be needed for processes that didn't require a waiver. And they were just making a change to the plan. So that's just a clarity edit from staff's end. One of the things that we had made in a previous iteration of the text was talking about what the Planning Commission can and can't consider when it comes to waiver requests. We had already proposed to remove the language that said additional costs can't constitute in a necessary hardship. That had already been removed in a previous version of the text. However, it reappeared in a second section. So this is just bringing that all the way through and in line with the rest of staff's comments. And so that brings us to the end of the actual changes that staff has made. I'd be happy to answer any questions about these changes. Once again, we have public comments. And then, however, the Planning Commission feels best to kind of take any individual comments on individual sections, do it as a whole, however we're here to help. Thank you, Daniel. We'll take this time for Commissioner questions. Obviously we'll have Commissioner comment later. But right now for Daniel, do we have Commissioner questions? Ms. Davis. Daniel, on page 41 of the ZOTA, it still has Appendix 23B on there, and I believe it's meant to be article. Mr. Duncan and I talked about that last time. Just wanted to point that out. And before you answer, Mr. Crum, Ms. Davis, there is a nuance to this, so that between Tracy and Daniel they should be able to explain why the word appendix isn't in there. Page 41. Article 23 in its total is about the expansion area. And then it kind of gives some introductory text in that section. And then there's three appendices. So Appendix A deals with the standards for all zones. It's intended. That's all I need to hear. Thank you. Thanks. All right. I will also note that we did receive a comment from Commissioner Wirth about later on when we get to discussing Article 21, where we're talking about anywhere in the document where we talk about safety, health and safety, health, safety, welfare is the entire concept. So, yeah, we'll make sure that that gets added. And that was an oversight on Staff Spot. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. Any other Commissioner questions for Daniel at this time? Mr. Mickler. I've got a few questions here. The first one is probably simple and straightforward. Where you removed the Planning Commission discretion for private streets, how does that impact? A lot of the discussion when that occurs has to do with public access or gating or things like that. Is that covered somewhere else in the ordinance? Or if we want to make sure that private streets come to us if they want to gate, will we need to say that? Let's see here. Let me look at our language in Article 16 real quick. Okay. Yeah, so otherwise in the zoning ordinance isn't referenced to gates in that manner. So I guess we would have to add a standard that sort of reflected that. But otherwise this section is telling us- It would meet the spirit of what you all are trying to do if that deletion or qualified it as private streets with no gates could be approved. Yes. And in the sense of so, yeah, if you prohibit it or let's say the nuance behind this, to a certain aspect if you set up a standard in such a way that it could be waived, you would then have the ability to look at that. It would just be a matter of kind of how we want to parse that language out. I may leave that open while the rest of the discussion continues. But I would maybe want to circle back to a recommendation because I know that's what a lot of the discussion around private streets at the hearings has come to. The removal of the language for the appeals process. So can you go back through? I mean, the intent of that process I assume originally was for someone to be able to say we disagree with the technical review. I mean, in the example of the one that just had that we disagree that a truck can't be, that the rule on that truck in the flood plain. What is the problem with having an appeals process to the planning commission, I guess? So I'll probably defer this one to law on kind of what the consideration is on that. So basically where we came up with that is currently what you're talking about in terms of the process we currently have in place. It's not an appeal process. It's a process. So somebody files an application. They go to technical. All the parties, individual departments, divisions are there. They weigh in. They make recommendations. The applicant has the opportunity to take those, go back, revise their plan before it comes to the subdivision committee. Also part of the process, not an appeal of technical. The subdivision committee hears that. You all say just totally hypothetical, FY. You've got 35 conditions. We're not going to want to hear that next week. So you need to work on these. Here's the things we're having trouble with. Another opportunity for the applicant to go back. Before it comes to you all as a full commission like today. And then you all make a decision at that point. That decision on development plans currently is appealable by statute to circuit court. This process is changing because of House Bill 443 that says you shall adopt objective standards and you shall apply them ministerially, which means you're not going to be using discretion in applying those. You're going to apply them for what they say. And everybody's going to know what they say, all parts of this community, when it's adopted. So there is no provision in KRS to appeal for that process because it's not coming to the planning commission. It's not going to the urban county council. It's not going to the board of adjustment. It's a decision that is being set up when the standards are adopted as to that they shall be applied ministerially, which means they shall be applied without discretion, which means you don't need a hearing where you sit here and talk about it for an hour about all the different things you just applied. It either meets or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then a waiver can be requested and then it can come to you. So that's why we ask them to take it out because we believe that a process is being set up for an appeal that isn't provided for from the ministerial process in the current statute. Now, that's not to say, depending on the decision that's made or what happens, that there may not be some other basis for an appeal. But I'm not going to go there because that's not what I'm supposed to do. That's what somebody else is supposed to do when they're representing their client and determining if they have other claims or other basis for appeal under other statutes. So that's why it came out, because it's just... I totally understand the angst about that, but that's what 443 says and that's what we're trying to comply with, and by July 1. Thank you. And then, Daniel? Coming back to two points I've made in committee, but the caveat to the ministerial process or the codes is if something specific addresses the public health, safety, and welfare. And the ZOTA before us removes both public comment and the planning commission from the process of being able to speak to issues of public health, safety, and welfare unless they're brought forward by staff. I sent my comments concerned that while I understand the reasons for the recommendation to change the process to not include a public hearing, as I understood them, to not waste everyone's time, to not make people feel like their comments could change one of the criteria, and to prevent us from making comments or a vote that didn't comply with the ordinance, I still feel that without a path for members of the planning commission or the public to bring forward those issues, that that hearing should remain in place until another path has been established. And I guess I want you to speak to those sort of comments I sent. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And we absolutely kind of understand that context. So I think we need to clear up as well that staff has the ability to take comments at any point in this process. So what we're really talking about is this public hearing where it's specifically brought forward to you all. And so basically from the time of application to the time that technical committee typically gets it is about, give or take, three weeks. And so in that time, if someone raised from the public using their firsthand experience, as you noted, for a property out in an ag area that has a very specific concern, a pond that's not being shown or reflected adequately, et cetera, the process for that would be that you would contact staff. Staff would investigate that in conjunction with the technical review committee. And then once again, it's on staff to elevate that to do all the planning commission's review. And so as far as the ability of you all in particular to elevate a health, safety, welfare, really that's going to be the staff with the public having input in the form of interacting with staff during that time period. Now, that's going to necessitate and much of the House Bill 443 is going to necessitate some internal changes that are sort of external to what you all are looking at and approving today as far as the zoning ordinance, but rather mechanisms on our end that we have to look at as far as engagement, awareness, et cetera, that once again are sort of internal staff items to make sure that if we have applications coming up that there's reasonable knowledge that that's coming and how that's going to be handled. So to that point, we want to stick within a ministerial balance. We want to give folks the ability to raise the specific things that they can challenge. We understand that folks send in comments with a variety of different concerns, but ultimately the statute and the way that we have this set up here, the planning staff and the technical staff would have the ability to refer that up to the planning director to kind of send on to the planning commission. So we understand it. We are just trying to stay within the strict interpretation of the ministerial and kind of limit that comment to the early part of the process where we are still making those reviews and we can have that weighed in to kind of make the best decision we can with the info we have. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any other questions for Daniel before we move on to public comment? Thank you. All righty. Seeing none. At this time, the planning commission is happy to hear from the public. Again, please approach the podium, state your name. It is the policy of the planning commission that everyone has three minutes and there is no borrowing or lending of time. Good afternoon, planning commissioners and staff. My name is Patty Drouse. I live in the Joyland neighborhood at 608 Allen Court, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Joyland Neighborhood Association Board. There are a few points I wanted to bring up. Number one, under article 11 on page 14, interchange service business zone, B5P zone at section 11-4, conditional uses. Letter A, mining of nonmetallic materials. Land disturbances from mining releases toxic substances, dust, and particulate matter. This cannot be controlled effectively or thoroughly. People in Joyland, Hamburg, in houses new and existing at the Winchester Road Interchange, and in any new housing developments at the Richmond Road Interchange will be exposed. This exposure causes increased rates of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Mining is not a transient type service as stated in the intent. This is just very strange to be there at an interchange. I ask for the removal of mining as a conditional use. Under on page 16, under section 11-7, minimum design standards for access. And I may just not be understanding what's written there, so excuse me if that's so, but also please add that the direct entrance or exit must be at least 200 feet from a corridor node artery intersection when entering or exiting to a collector street. If the collector street intersects with the artery, that the entrance and exit needs to be set back 200 feet. And then under appendix 23B, page 23, this has to do with the expansion area procedures and requirements, but generally for new developments. A general statement that now is the time to be forward thinking and add specific requirements for building for maximum energy efficiency. And placing light or white roofs to reflect sun and therefore heat. This will also help to decrease the heat island effect for Lexington residents. Climate change and climate chaos are real. Lastly, I ask for much more vigorous and robust notification of existing neighborhoods when there's a request for a zone change in a preliminary development plan. This will likely be our only opportunity to be heard and we don't want to miss it. I understand that we can go to the planning staff, but that's going to be confusing really, rather than just coming to these regular meetings. Current methods of notification are insufficient for this. A mailing would be good or many more signs throughout a neighborhood. Thank you for considering these comments. And I do have a copy of these comments if you want that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson. Very quickly, I'm not going to reiterate what I said previously. I've sent in the kind of the, what I've been calling a skinnier ZOTA. That's basically just getting at the actual aspects of House Bill 443 and the objective and subjective standards. The ZOTA that I kind of was proposing that you all look at was taken entirely from staff's language. A single word was changed from what staff was approving because what that kind of exercise was designed to do is show you that's the ZOTA we should be talking about here today. It shouldn't be the five other ZOTAs that are basically riding along with this. There are a lot of standards, and some of them were actually just pointed out, that need to be closely scrutinized. I thought it was very interesting two development plans ago when we were talking about the width of sidewalks, going in so depth with regards to that. And this ZOTA is changing a lot of the things you just heard about. And we were confused what the rules were today. We didn't understand why the rules were what they were today. And these are increasing those same rules. The sidewalk with an overhang, right now it's six feet. This is proposing it to be to seven feet. I don't know if that's right. We haven't had that discussion. One other aspect of that is it is requiring raised pedestrian basically walkways in commercial parking lots if it is going above 24 feet as a drive aisle. Based on what we heard today, I'm assuming that that's going to have to be a five foot wide basically speed table. In talking with three different snow removal companies, they said they will flat out refuse to serve any commercial development that has interior speed tables because it ruins their truck, it ruins the speed table, and then the customer is not happy. They're having to buy new equipment, and so they just basically won't do that. We're not talking about that type of stuff, but we should be because there are economic impacts to the changes that are being proposed that have nothing to do with the House Bill 443, but are worthy of having a discussion in this type of forum or in your work session where we can really get down and talk about the nuts and bolts of why we are so concerned about what appears to be very minor changes in the zoning ordinance. So that's all I really had to say. Thank you all for your time. Oh, on the mining issue, I actually just had a look into this because it's in the ED zone as well, and a client I represent was very confused. It turns out there's a state law that basically limits what local governments can do with regards to mining and mining operations because there's already a state agency that basically occupies the field, and so they don't really allow local governments to change that type of aspect. Something I just found out. Thank you. Nick? Thank you. I'm Dick Murphy, and I just want to say I appreciate the changes that the staff has proposed to you today in the body of the ordinance. I still, however, do second what Mr. Nicholson said. I think that if we remove the provisions regarding drive-throughs and commercial entrances, they deserve a little more time to be worked out with all the people involved. So I would agree with Mr. Nicholson we ought to go with the shortened version of the ordinance at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Dick. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak? Amy Clark, 628 Kessel Road. I will say I am very disappointed with the way this ZOTA has evolved, being developed for many, many months in concert with some stakeholders and citizens and not others. If any commission members have shared their remarks and comments generally with one another, generally I would have wished to see that as an open record. Otherwise, it's a closed meeting if you're visiting with one another in whole without including the public. I asked for records offered as ZOTA comment. These have been referred to. I got Mr. Gross's. They were handed in at the hearing, the first half, and I assume it was thought that those were the only ones that could appropriately be shared. I haven't seen Mr. Nicholson's 13-page ZOTA. I am concerned that the TRC approval still has not defined, articulated who exactly is taking action. The commission is an appointed body. It has members. It has a quorum. It has bylaws. The TRC is a list of experts who may have to do with one or another plan and not every plan. Some of them are staff members. Some of them are licensed professionals. Some are community utilities. It seems to me inconceivable that there couldn't or shouldn't be an appeal process for a decision made by whoever it is that makes the decision. I would point your attention first to the provision in our BOA, and it's Kentucky Statute in Karis 100, which says that if a ministerial official in their duties renders a decision, it is a decision made by the Board of Supervisors. In their duties renders a decision. It says more than, there are several things. But the act of a ministerial, the ministerial act may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. And our zoning ordinance specifies planning officials, that is to say staff, I guess. And building inspection. And I don't recall whether that's the limit of the statute or not. But it's capricious and arbitrary not to have an appeal and not to be able to name who is acting in deciding on a plan. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Seeing none, we will close that portion of the hearing and hear from our commissioners. Okay, thank you. I have a couple. Just comment or just general amongst ourselves. I wouldn't mind hearing from staff on just a couple of the citizen comments. Specifically, we did just see a plan today where staff was suggesting sign off on sort of six foot sidewalks with vehicular overhang. And then we're looking at something where Mr. Nicholson just pointed out seven foot. So I would maybe like to hear staff comment on that. And then a comment on the, we've heard a lot about the commercial entrances and a comment on what the standards are now and what is proposed. That sort of contrast. Yes, so to kind of touch on the first. I actually think that the example that we saw earlier is sort of the opposite of way that this will proceed in a house bill 443 system. So essentially what was at contention was not an aspect that was explicitly outlined in the zoning ordinance. But rather the expertise of the pedestrian planner as it relates to ADA compliance, best practices, etc. And so under the current plans or the current system, that negotiation goes in that I have the ability to kind of make a context sensitive discussion. So that moving forward, these things would need to be codified or they would not be able to sort of be required on a plan. So to that same point, that's sort of where they're coming from. But David, if you want to. That specific one about the seven foot. It's actually currently in, but it only applies to B4, I1 and I2 or ED zone. So that's where it came from. And that's because the overhang is generally about two feet. And so it's in one of the zones. It just wasn't applied to the other two. I think it happened when the parking zone came through in 2022. And that was when I know I was like, well, really? And now if they have wheel stops, something to actually prevent the projection into the thin, that it's not, they'd still be able to have five feet. And that's in there as well. Something, yeah, that would stop them from the overhanging from occurring. Yeah, and so, and once again, to just kind of recenter that we have the core components of this and the process things that have to change to make things objective standards, but it also, once again, in a way that we just saw things that we as a community, and we've noted this as we were discussing that that five foot discussion has been a pretty consistent point that we've brought up again and again and again. And we, you know, kind of within that review process that those would need to be new standards as it was sort of called by some of the public comment that they opined didn't have a place there. Staff feels that it does because it's part of the standard of review that we've been doing at some point. So once again, just trying to get everything on the books, that way there isn't any confusion, that way applicants know exactly what's expected of them, but always understanding that even if a particular standard seems onerous to them in a particular application, if they have the ability to waive, vary, et cetera, as appropriate to seek relief is kind of where I would sum up. Some of your questions with like some of the access standards so like the driveway spacing in like our subdivision regulations, we have regulations to align like streets and things like that from across one another. And generally in the past for commercial accesses, we've requested that they align across one another, but I don't think it's explicitly stated anywhere. So that was one, there's several aspects. I think you mentioned, Brandon mentioned it last time we met, but within 100 feet of a rail crossing, that actually came from a review. So we're trying to implement a quiet zone through Lexington and during the safety review, there's basically everything has a certain safety value. The horn has a safety value and things like, and so one of the ways to enable you to not have the horn is to implement other safety improvements. And one of those was that is the railroad does not want, not that they'll prevent it necessarily, but want commercial access points within 100 feet of the crossing. And so that's where that 100 feet of a rail crossing. And really in my mind, it was more for new and primary entrances. So, I mean, I think he showed examples of a lot of existing ones. So that's where that came from. So I could go through the list, but if you want any specific examples of why we came up with something. I think there's one about having like a driveway that's approved that would meet the new standards if a site's basically redeveloped. That's something we request typically, but it's not explicitly laid out anywhere, I don't think currently. So some of those are other reasons we've proposed the access standards the way they are. All right, Mr. Penn, did you have? Mr. Filiotro, before you get back to your seat, just in response to the citizen comment here about the minimum design standards, access direct entrance or exit must be at least 200 feet from a corridor node intersection when entering, exiting a collector street. Would you respond to that? Sorry, I didn't hear that. That's in the B5P zone only, is what? So the current access for your B5P, which is there shall be no direct entrances or exits for many establishments to an arterial street unless the acceleration and deceleration lanes are built. So I'm not sure exactly how we would include something. Let me see, yeah, just trying to get this clear. So there's a current, I guess, note in for B5P that you can't have direct access to an arterial unless there are acceleration lanes. And so I guess this is wanting to modify it 200 feet from a corridor node intersection. So directing, so I guess they're talking about the offset from the street back. So basically, if you're adjacent to an arterial and you have a local road, how far back do you have to go before there's the first driveway? And I think they're proposing 200 feet, which, well, so a driveway's a little different. I know on a collector, it's gotta be, so like a residential's gotta be at least 50 feet from the intersection. Commercial, I'm trying to think what, for like a local street, if it's another street, it's 250 feet. Yeah, so typically we try to do that, but there are instances where the parcel doesn't extend, you know, it doesn't even extend 250 feet. So driveway access sometimes is, we have to have access. So there are instances where that can be accepted. Okay, Ms. Davis. This is a question for staff. I'm not sure which staff. Mrs. Drouse's last comment about notification of existing neighborhoods. I can't remember where this is, where the clarification is, but can you tell me which article it is, what we have now, and I believe she made the comment two weeks ago to increase it, I think it was to 800 feet, was that right? Or 800, anyone who's within 800 feet of a development, whereas now it's 500? I didn't have a specific. Oh, you did, okay. Maybe Daniel, can you comment about that for me? Yeah, so I don't believe that specific section is included within the kind of text that you see before you. I know specifically for a waiver, we refer to the adjoining parcels. I think some of the comment that we have heard from, not particularly, I mean, this is talking about zone change in a development plan. We've heard some comment about increasing that for a waiver request. So right now, it is, as proposed, would just be the adjoining parcels. In a zone change, the notification area varies depending on the context of if it's adjoining any agricultural land. But right now, the standard is 500 feet, and then that expands out within an agricultural context. And so it's kind of outside the, when we're having the discussion as well of what should be included within House Bill 443, that's not something that we've kind of currently been implementing. So moving forward may be important, but I think, too, as we kind of look at this, we want to make sure that this is kind of limited to the changes necessary to make 443. So that can be something we can look at in the future or if the Planning Commission decides to increase that now. But to answer your question, for a zone change, 500 feet, larger with ag, the waiver request as it stands today would be the adjoining parcels only, and there's no notification currently for a final development plan, and there isn't anything formally proposed in the text amendment for that. I think now would be a golden opportunity to expand the notification, since that may be citizens-only opportunity to ever even know about something. I mean, it is wonderful. The planning staff can talk to folks, but you have to be aware of a plan change. And I don't think everyone will obviously, comes down here on lots of Thursday afternoons just in case something's going on. So I think a wider notification process should be codified now, should be passed now, and not left to the future. Any more discussion? Floor is open. How do we, I mean, there's a lot of public comment in the documents. Do we as a commission discuss those things and or just kind of let it be public comment? What do we do with that? I'm the newbie. I think what we're called to do here now is to take all the information that we've received from the different stakeholders and discern our way to a decision knowing that we've got the House bill coming to effect in July. So my understanding is we need to take all the information we've heard here and throughout this whole process and make a decision based on our abilities to discern what we feel is important. I also want to make a point that we are gonna have the ability to propose ZOTAs in the future to make any changes that we would like to make. If we were able to get the number of votes required to get the ZOTA under consideration, then we'd take in the staff's recommendations up or down on the ZOTA that's requested, and then we would vote on it, and then it would go to council, and council can then adopt it or not. That's my understanding. And can council be given all the public comment? I mean, we'd make a recommendation. I think council should know we're passing it along along with all the public comment that we've seen, heard, and we have, well, I, for one, have some interest in amending a couple of the, or adding some of Mrs. Drouse's comments, but they're, yeah, thanks, sorry. If I may, let me follow up with one thing. To my fellow commissioner on the far end, Mr. Nichols, you referred to moving this forward after a lot of discussion with stakeholders and comments from stakeholders. Are the citizens considered stakeholders as well? Absolutely. I consider multiple stakeholders. A stakeholder would be the property owner that has the property rights. It would be the other properties that are in a location, reasonable location, 500 feet, of that property who could be affected by that property. So those would be the two stakeholders. And then the third stakeholder would be in the form of the document that was approved by us, the planning commission and staff, which is the comprehensive plan. So when I think of stakeholders, it's property owner, those that would be affected by the property within a certain notification range, and the document that we've approved, which is the comprehensive plan. Okay. Oops, oops, okay, thank you. I was just curious because with Mrs. Davis's comments as far as citizen comments, it seemed like with your comment that was being left out. But I appreciate that, thank you. Mr. Penn. I can't remember but one other time when I've been involved in something that keeps me up at night. Not much keeps me up at night. But this situation, I couldn't figure out how it happened. So I went back and I pulled up House Bill 443 and it passed the House 92 to nothing. It passed the Senate 37 to nothing. I was looking for a no vote because I'd like to know why somebody would vote against this. I've come to the conclusion and the governor signed it 4-4-24. The Senate passed it 3-26-24 and the House passed it 2-23-24. And we spent all this time developing a reaction to 443. But the one thing which is a fundamental right of citizens of any community is public comment. I don't believe that the legislature's do ministerial meant no public comment. You can send in things but you can't come down and express your views. So I would like to move this forward. It may pass, it may not. But just for my benefit, I'd like to approve PLN Zota 25-1 with the council approval of an opportunity for public citizens comment of subdivision development plans. Okay. So we have a motion by Mr. Penn to approve and pass this on to the Urban County Council with a public comment component. Second for Ms. Davis, Mr. Wilson. This is for discussion. Let me say that I first of all appreciate when I came on this council, the two words that always stuck in my mind, the two words listen and learn. And when I came in, I was pretty much focused on the public engagement process. But I've learned from listening to attorneys and other people in the community, some of the other concerns that they had. And I learned a lot through this whole process. It's taken a while to get there. But let me simply say too that I appreciate the staff and everyone here knows how I felt about the public engagement piece. In fact, since I've been here, I've never felt so strongly about any piece being omitted in that public engagement piece. But to the staff's credit, they tried to address my concerns. They've given me some language. I think that we could accomplish what we had, what we needed to have. And I also appreciated my colleague, Mr. Nichols, saying that we could have some additional Zoters along the way that would be able to improve on what we've got. But I'm speaking in support of Mr. Penn's motion. I think that the key thing is we should go online, go on record as being approving this. But I think we should lay it squarely in the fact in the sense of a recommendation to the council saying very simply that we don't particularly care for this particular piece of the leading public engagement. And then let them have it, let them play with it, and let them determine how they're gonna educate their constituents as such. So I just want to go on record as saying that I think that his motion is appropriate. And I probably would have been a little stronger on the recommendation side, but I will accommodate the best I could to move this thing forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chair. Mr. Owens. If I may. Please. I would concur with Mr. Penn and Mr. Wilson with what they said. I've already said in prior meetings that I... Sorry. Okay. I've already said in prior meetings that I think citizen comments is a fundamental right. I'm not gonna go into that anymore. But a few things I've gotta say. I firmly believe that the staff and the commission did not ask for House Bill 443. The staff has worked very hard and diligently to try and accommodate it. We've heard from everybody involved. I've heard many times that this was caused because of a city of Lexington delaying development plans. That's not on us as a commission. I believe you could look at our record and see that if it gets to us in a hearing like we did today, we pretty much move it on through. Okay. I just disproved one. But I think if you look at it, we did give them every opportunity to make revisions and come to us with a better plan, which they did not do. But that is not on us. Simply put, our numbers speak for itself. I've heard of everybody involved has talked about overreach. Seemed like a common thread. Once again, we didn't ask for this. So we've got to live with it. Everybody's got to live with it. So everybody's not getting everything they want here about any stretch of imagination. But be careful what you ask for, I guess, at times. There's language that says approving authority. I still believe that they're approving authority is the planning commission and the council, depending on what has been taking place and what's going before us. And everybody needs to remember that. I really wish that health, safety, and welfare would come to us in a more expedient manner. But at this time, I will vote for this with, as Mr. Wilson said, the strong recommendation that Citizen Comments finds a way to get back into the system. Thank you. Mr. Owens. Mr. Mickler. Well, I have a question on this, because as I sort of mentioned earlier in the comments, I'm very much in support of keeping a public process while I understand the concerns that have been raised and have brought the recommendation before us. In support of the motion, but I'm also curious how it would work if we are approving a ZOTA that removes the hearing, but requires public comment. And I'm wondering if we, if we, I guess I'm asking my fellow commissioners, if we have, if there's a mechanism to either maintain the current process until an alternative public comment process is in effect, or if there's no, if, I guess that's a question, I guess, for my fellow commissioners here on that one. Well, you know, we can get into weeds, and we can try to figure out what the council should do and what the council shouldn't do. But it strikes me as odd that you can have a ministerial hearing for a cell tower, for a school, and we don't disallow public comment. So I'm not asking for an answer. I made a motion to move this forward. I'm not answering to have a debate right now what's good or what's bad or what's law or what's not law. I want the council to decide. They're the ones that have to face the voters. There's 26 neighborhood associations in Fayette County, and they need to have an opportunity to be heard. And so if this flies fine, if it doesn't fly, we'll do something else. But in good conscience, after I found out that nobody voted against this, and you gotta remember, if you go back and look at who represents Fayette County, one of them sit right on the council. So that person certainly understood what ministerial was. So I don't think the rest of them did. I think if you'd have got on the floor and said, ministerial means no public comment, if it checks all the boxes, it just goes through. I don't think you'd had that kind of vote. So that's my motion. It's been seconded. That's my reasons. And I urge you to support it. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ben. Mr. McAvoy. I guess I have a couple of small items that I would ask that maybe you consider incorporating in the motion. One was a small detail that staff agreed to that it specify health, safety, and welfare in all of the areas that just says health and safety. That was an omission from them. And then the other one was in the new change they recommended on private streets. I wanna make sure our continuity of our neighborhoods isn't impacted by a lot of gates on private streets. And clarifying that private streets with no gate would be permitted. I don't have any problem with that. Do you, Bill? Nope. Okay, so Mr. Penn is amenable to amending his motion to include those two clarifications. And Ms. Davis is fine with that amendment as well. If we're gonna add some amendments, can we also add the amendment about the increase of the notification area to 800 feet within the affected property? If the planning commission is? Yeah, I mean, yes, you can certainly move to amend the amended motion. I'm looking at Mr. Wilson. You can do two amendments only. Two, okay, for each motion. So we've really already have, would Mr. Mickler's be one amendment or two? Correct, his would be one. One, so. Then my amendment is to increase the area to 800 feet about people who are notified. And can we please ask traffic engineering to look at the access, the 200 feet from a corridor, section 11-7 minimum design standards? Mrs. Drowse's comments. Would that be more part of an amendment, or rather a, I guess this is a ZOTA, so we don't really have. Chair, let me clarify some things here first. So on these amendments, the ones that Mr. Mickler just suggested, did Mr. Penn accept those as friendly amendments? Yes, yes. Yes, and Ms. Davis did as well. Okay, and what about, that was my next question. Also, what Ms. Davis is proposing, are you accepting that as a friendly amendment to your original motion? Can we, I think we're getting out of order. The way that should, excuse me for being so authoritative here is that when she made an amendment, it has to be seconded before it can be properly put into the mix. The amendment has to be seconded. Okay, so really we need to go back because I want to make sure Mr. Mickler's amendment had a second. I'll second. Okay, second. I was just seeing if it would, I think what you were saying is I was seeing if Frank was willing to add it and then the seconder, but. That's what I thought as well. So if procedurally, are we, my understanding was Mr. Mickler was saying, can we add these things as a friendly amendment to Mr. Penn's amendment, which means if he is agreeable to that, and the seconder is agreeable to that, they would be added in. And I understood that to be a yes. Is that right? And then Ms. Davis is, I'm not sure if she's asking the same thing or she's trying to make a motion about different things. So I guess we need to get clear there. As I understand it, it was a second amendment to the motion on the floor. So yeah, a second friendly amendment. It was to increase notification from 500 feet to 800 feet where necessary. The notification right now that we're talking about is just adjacent properties only in the event of a waiver. I think the notification should be larger to reach people so that they are aware of it so that as planning staff has said, the public can come to them if they have questions. That may be their only mechanism to learn about something and they have no other opportunity to have input. So I think we're talking about two different things here. Agree. The only notification provision currently, well, there is no notification for development plans in our current ordinance. Like when somebody files a development plan separate from a zone change, there is no notification unless, for example, and this is in very rare cases, a neighborhood association has asked for in the course of a zone change to be notified if the development plan changes later on. That happens rarely. But otherwise, there is no notification. In this piece of legislation that you're looking at right now, the only notification provision applies when an applicant seeks a waiver to veer off of the objective adopted standards. And so if they don't file a waiver, there is still no notification. I don't want that in this motion because it applies to zone change, not to development. Okay. And then the second aspect of it. Was the suggestion to increase the distance, I think, between 200 feet in the B5P zone so that there is, I guess, some, excuse me, some greater degree of distance between those two kinds of roads. I believe that was what you talked about. So that that's entry and exit. Excuse me, it sounds like that. Yeah, they can do that in separate zones. The more we throw in, the less. No, let's not go there. We're taking more emphasis off of the fact that we need to have public comment. And I think just, you know, if we keep adding this, this, this, and this, the public comment becomes a smaller part. And my thought was that the whole purpose of this motion was to put it back to the council so that they would figure this thing out. How do we get this public comment in? I think we should just kind of. I can withdraw the friendly amendment then. I was just going to say, we're getting so granular. I think that can be addressed in another arena rather than an amendment here. Okay. The proposed. The big item here is to say that we are taking this forward with the recommendation that the council and the staff figure out a way to do this. And then it's up to them to deal with that 26th Neighborhood Association that's out there. And we'll see how they handle it. Can we clarify something about the motion? Because I understood it not to be a recommendation that they figured out how to do it. I understood it to be that we're approving the ZOTA from our perspective with the requirement that an opportunity for public comment remain. I misspoke. You're exactly right. That clarification or that is your intent. That would be good. But you still, in order to get that motion into the main thing, you still have to vote on that amendment first. Okay. Just the amendment. Just the amendment. Amendment up and down. And in the meantime, Ms. Davis has withdrawn her proposed. Okay. That's correct. Okay. Mr. Duncan. And Mr. Chair, thank you. Before you all take any official action, I would like, just so that we understand, and if I'm saying this back incorrectly, then we want to certainly have this corrected. But Mr. Penn and Ms. Davis have proposed recommending approval for the ZOTA that's before you. Mr. Michler said we also want to, and I believe this is almost more of a correction, but if it has to be handled as an amendment, that's fine. Make sure that it says health, safety, and welfare. And then one other thing that you said also. Yeah. My other thing was just a response to one of the very last minute changes where we took away the hearing when someone wants a private street. And I just wanted to clarify that that is automatically approved only when there's no gate. So, thank you. And so, Mr. Chair, that's what we understand to be the ZOTA that the Planning Commission is forwarding to the Urban County Council. This plus those two things that Mr. Michler said. There was more to Mr. Penn's motion. Well, but that's not changing anything in the ZOTA. That's also been a statement about the Planning Commission's values and their request that the council, so yes, Ms. Davis, you're absolutely right, that will be included as well, but that does not become an article in the ZOTA itself. That is correct. And we don't want it to be an article. No. Okay, so we need to... Yes, Mr. Michler. I'm confused how we're asking for public comment and it's not in the ZOTA. I'm a little bit confused on that. Mr. Penn, the way I understood that was that you all are putting the council on notice that the Planning Commission is very interested in a solution to the public comment issue and you would like for them then to take that up and to offer some suggestions on how... or to actually put that in the legislation and how to have increased public comment. I definitely want that. I want the council to understand that in Fayette County, public comment is essential to the way we do business and that's... I can't put it any more clear than that. Okay, so I think... I have the same question I think that Commissioner Michler does. We're not... We're, in essence, sending this forward as is with the two changes Mr. Michler proposed as sort of friendly amendments. And then there's going to be a separate... not a recommendation, but a separate statement to the council about your all's concern about public involvement, public engagement, public comment, but you're not attaching that or amending this to include that somewhere because if your intent is to make that a requirement of this, we need to... and send it forward that way. We have to put it somewhere. If your intent is to make them aware that it is a concern of yours and you want them to take it up when they get this and act on it, because ultimately they have to act on it. It's an ordinance and they have to act on it. So I guess... Is that your question Mr. Michler? Because it's mine. And so, I mean, I'm understanding the intent is not to amend this to include that, but to send a statement forward to them saying, we heard all this, we think these are all the changes you should make, but we also think you have to look at that and figure out how to incorporate that. But if I'm wrong, that's fine. I just want to be clear what we send forward to the council is clear on our end. I understand and I'm personally willing to have coaching. I'm not saying... I didn't spend the night at the Holiday Inn last night, so I'm not trying to be an attorney. But what I am trying to do is to say to the council, we want this in. If you take it out, you have to... It's your job to take it out. We want it in here. Now, how would you suggest that we do that? Would the place in the ZOTA that originally had the appeals portion be a place that this might go where a member of the public could request within three weeks of a hearing? We can't take on the job now telling them how to do it. But I think we have to, otherwise it's a recommendation and it's not part of the process. Thank you. Mr. Chair, we are... The staff is scheduled to present House Bill 443 to the General Government Committee. That will be before they formally receive your recommendation. There will be other opportunities for the staff to address their questions. And I think... I feel that you all have made it clear or that some of you have made it clear that a public engagement opportunity is important to you and that you want the council to understand that as well and that they wouldn't figure it out, but they would look to us and say, well, what would that look like? And then if they wanted to pursue that, and then we could offer some suggestions. So I can certainly commit to you on the record and in the middle of this motion that staff will communicate that clearly to the Urban County Council. And we do have an opportunity to do that coming up within the next month. So we will make sure that that is communicated to them. What they do with it, of course, is up to them. But we will communicate your desire to have a public input process for this. I have to ask this question and I really don't want to be mean, but if you have a means of doing that, why haven't you shared that with us in the last two months? We don't have a means of doing that. That's what I need to hear. No, we don't. The ministerial means that the staff approves. But if we're directed to do it, then we'll dig in and see what we can find. But we're bringing you our expertise right now based on law, based on statute, and there is no means to do it. I heard you saying we will do it. No, we will do what our officials ask us to do. And the recommendation could possibly come back and say we don't see a way to do this, and they do it anyway. Laws get passed that are against staff recommendation all the time, including House Bill 443. Mr. Chair, if I may, Jim, if I may, I thought I heard you say that you had a presentation of House Bill 443 going to go to the council prior to our recommendation going to them. Is that correct? Prior to them officially receiving it. Okay. We are going to turn this around and give them a copy of what you approve next week. Okay. So they'll have it unofficially in advance, but they won't formally receive it until after, which is the same day. We're just making a presentation at 1 o'clock. They formally received it through. Our strong recommendation will go with that. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Can we get the motion up on the screen with the wording for the recommendation or the wording for the change? You need it, Will. You want me to read it to you again? Is that what you want me to do? Maybe read it to me, and we'll have it written down and put up. I recommend that the approval of PLN Zoda 25-1 with council approval of opportunities for public citizen comment on subdivision development plan. Okay. While that's going on, so... I guess I'm confused. What? I think I heard it the second time. So it's with recommendation for public? I didn't say... Or on the condition that public comment be incorporated? No, I said with approval of opportunity for public citizen comment on the subdivision development plan. Could you read it out one more time, Mr. Penman? Could you bring that microphone up to you closer? Sorry, I have a little hard of hearing. Approval of PLN Zoda 25-1 with council approval of opportunity for public citizen comment on subdivision development plans. So no Zoda in there? You have to have a subdivision plan to do a Zoda. You mean a zone change? I mean the zone change. Aren't you asking... I don't mean the Zoda. Okay. For zone changes, we already have to issue a notification. What I'm trying to do is give 26 Neighborhood Associations a chance for an opportunity to speak. It's no rocket science here. I just cannot believe that the history of this community is going to be wiped out by unintended consequences of 92 and 37 votes in the General Assembly. And so that's why I'm asking us to do this. Okay. Ultimately, we still have a motion on the floor that has been seconded, and an amendment has been proposed, which we have to vote on. The amendment first. The amendment. So let's do that. And the clarification from the amendment should be good. It would be good. Okay. What the actual amendment wants. The clarification. Right. Okay. It has already been accepted by the motion maker and the seconder. So... Okay. So this is the clarification that Mr. Mickler offered on the two points. Could you just very briefly... The clarification was the text correction, as noted by staff and commented by Commissioner Wirth, that everywhere that it says health and safety, we also say welfare, and that the clarification that when we're talking about the permission to build private streets, we're talking about the permission to build ungated private streets. Thank you. Now, without objection, let's put that amendment to a vote. This is just to the amendment to the motion that is on the floor. Who seconded the amendment? Do we need a second on the amendment? Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Wirth. Yes. Okay. All right. Do we want to do just a voice vote or a show of hands? I have it. Okay. All right. So that carries 9-1. So we have a motion on the floor that has been seconded with an amendment that has been approved. Do we have any other discussion? If not, we can vote on the motion itself as amended. Yes, Mr. McClure. Well, I guess my comment on this, and it's from this discussion, is that I understand if we vote yes, that we're stating that we would like public comment, and that is carrying through. But unless we actually put it in the text of the ZOTA, what we're actually doing is we're stripping the public of the opportunity to comment. And so at this moment, I'm torn because I agree 100% with the sentiment of the motion. But at this moment, I'm a no, because I'm still looking for a way to actually put it in writing so that the council would have to take it out of the text. They couldn't just ignore the recommendation. Mr. Chair. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Mr. Chair, Mr. McClure, perhaps this is a distinction that needs to be understood, but the Planning Commission is not stripping public comment. The statute has done that by using the word ministerial. So that's why in answer to Mr. Penn's question, why haven't we offered you an opportunity, because we don't believe there is one. We understand your concern and your frustration, and the council, what they might do, we don't know. But the Planning Commission is not stripping the community of its public engagement opportunity on this. The legislature has already done that, and come July 1st it goes away with or without your action. Chair, let me just say further, because I think this might help too. I know I've read this to you all 400 times, but I think it's critically important that you understand, and let me be 100% clear in my assessment of this. We are doing exactly what the legislature and those that lobbied them for this are asking us to do. We are codifying objective standards so everyone will know what they are. Everyone will know what they are. You don't have to like them all, but they're all there, they're clear, and they will be ministerially applied, because that's what was asked for and directed by this legislation. So I understand that it's different from what we've been doing. I understand that no one likes it. I understand all of that. I don't understand the idea that we shouldn't do what we're asked to do, because if we do what we're asked to do and we adopt objective standards and they're ministerially applied and you produce a plan that complies, you're going to go through this process way faster, which is what I thought the purpose of this was. But that's separate and apart from what I'm going to tell you that says legally. It says in Section 1, and there's two sections, except as provided in Subsection 2. Let me read that again. Except as provided in Subsection 2 of this section, the ordinances, rules, and regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter governing subdivision plans and development plans shall be in the form of objective standards and shall be applied ministerially. Section 2. And pay attention because it reads differently. Ordinances, rules, and regulations governing development plans may allow for discretion to be applied by the approving authority in circumstances where an applicant seeks a deviation from the established objective standards or the approving authority determines based on substantial evidence that a strict ministerial application of the established objective standards would pose a specific threat to public health, safety, or welfare in the affected area. The word discretion and the words approving authority do not appear in Section 1. They only appear in Section 2. Thus, our interpretation that only in instances where an applicant is saying I can't follow the objective standards for these reasons and I need a waiver, will the discretion of the approving authority, the planning commission, and the council apply. So that is why we're giving you that interpretation. And I know there's all kinds of things I could say about that from a personal standpoint and what I think, but I'm just telling you what it says legally. So I just want you to understand that. We're not sending forward this document to you trying to exclude the public, trying to say we want to strip them of their authority. I mean, that has not been our purview. That has not been what we've done for years, as long as I've been doing planning and before that, as long as I've been here, we've not been doing that. But that's what we think this says. And since we all know why we think this was precipitated, we think we need to comply. So that being said, I just want you to understand that there's two sections here, and we're trying to comply with both of them, but they're different. So I don't know if that helps, but I just want us to be clear on that. We are not, the staff or this commission, trying to eliminate public comment. We're trying to be compliant with what this says and when it should be allowed. The reason I wrote it the way I did was the very reason we can't put it in there, what you just said. But we can say we approve, with the council's approval, of an opportunity for public citizens' comment on subdivision development plans. I'm not saying that we need to put it in there, because I think she makes a very valid point, but the legislators in Frankfurt didn't understand the word ministerial, or they wouldn't have voted the way they did. Ruth Ann Palumbo would not have voted not to have public comment. I'm just telling you. So I know how the process works in Frankfurt. I know how it happened. I understand it. But we're running our community, and if this council wants to keep it and wants to have it, they'll figure out a way. If they don't, they'll take it out. Because I really don't think we can put it in for the reasons Tracy said. I may be wrong, but the reason I wrote it, and I wrote it, I didn't have somebody else write it, is that I didn't think we could include it in the thing. But going forward, it's on them, it's on the council, to decide whether they want to have public comment or they don't. And Tracy's going to give them the same speech that she just gave us. Isn't that right, Tracy? I am, and I'm not saying I'm above making a mistake. But we've looked at this for a long time, and I just don't want to guide you down the wrong road. And I don't want to open up the door to a discretionary-type hearing where we've been told not to have one. Well, let me ask you this. Is it saying not to have one, or is it more saying that that cannot be the basis for approval? Well, I mean, so... Or disapproval. You understand what I'm saying? Yeah, I do understand what you're saying. If we have the hearing, and it is, you know, maybe it's a discovery to see if there's anything that the staff may have overlooked with regard to health, safety, and welfare. And we're seeking the public opinion to verify that we're not overlooking something, then if something comes up during that hearing that says, oh, yes, it does impact health, safety, and welfare, then, you know, we go down one path. If it says, no, it does not, then it is purely ministerial. Yes, I understand what you're saying. The concern I have is what happens when it ventures off that in terms of what people think that may or may not be, and it becomes discretionary rather than ministerial. And another thing, too, is, you know, I think it was referenced earlier about there were ways, and I'm not suggesting there were the best ways, but there were ways that we have hearings on cell towers. We do. What we have on cell towers, and maybe this goes somewhat to Mr. Penn's point, is we have a statute that says you shall have a hearing, but you can't consider these things. Our case law says you can't consider these things. So at the end of the day, yeah, you're going to have a hearing, but you can't consider these things. And if you do, then you're going to get overturned. And we have been overturned because we considered those things. What about schools? Schools, all it says, it's a totally different thing. You shall have a public facility review to determine or give your opinion as to whether or not it complies with the comprehensive plan. But you can't change anything in their plan. You can suggest. You can have public comment. You can have public comment, and the school or the public utility or the public facility or whatever it is that's coming in front of us, because I don't want to attribute bad acts to anyone, that doesn't want to consider one single thing they heard, we can't make them. But that's because those statutes allowed that and specifically said that. This one doesn't. And so, you know, they could have added language in the first section. They could have added language in the second section. I don't know why they didn't. I have an idea, but that's irrelevant. It says what it says. So, I mean, that's the difference there. So, yeah, I mean, I don't know that it necessarily says that, but where are you going to get at the end of the day if you do that? And are you going to try to figure that out right now? I don't know. Mr. Wilson. Yes. Mr. Chairman, in due respect to my colleagues, I would like to call for the previous question. Thank you. All righty. We will put that to a vote. Mr. Penn's motion, amended motion, seconded by Ms. Davis. And that carries eight to two. Thank you, staff. Thank you, stakeholders. Thank you, commissioners, for your input. Mr. Duncan, do we have anything else today? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Terrific work on everyone's part. Thank you. Thank you all for doing this. I do want to remind you that we do have a planning commission work session next Thursday, and it's different than ordinary. So we hope every one of you can be there. This is going to be a joint work session with the Board of Adjustments, so an opportunity for you to see your brethren, where we will have the Kentucky League of Cities provide some updates on legislation as well as some other things for us. Two hours of continuing education credit will be at 130 Third Floor, Phoenix. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. If anybody has anything else, we can hear it now. Otherwise, without objection, we are adjourned. Yes, sir.