# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - May 8, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · May 8, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6422 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6422?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-05-08 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 26, 2026 - **Length**: 17,106 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on May 8, 2025, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting addressed 13 agenda items spanning final and preliminary subdivision plans, development plans, and public facilities reviews. Over the course of the meeting, 8 motions and votes were taken and 1 public comment was heard. Of the 11 subdivision and development plan items considered, 10 were approved and 1 — the Development Plans for Locust Hill Shopping Center (B-6P Area) (Jaggers) (AMD) — was postponed. The two public facilities review items produced split outcomes: the Bluegrass Airport review was found not in compliance, while the Deer Haven Park review was found in compliance. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on eight items during the May 8, 2025 meeting, with all items passing. - **PLN-MJSUB-25-00001 (Approval with Conditions):** Motioned by Mr. Pim and seconded by Commissioner Barksdale, the Commission unanimously approved PLN-MJSUB-25-00001 subject to 12 conditions as presented by staff. Vote: 9–0. [timestamp: 1:05:57] - **PLN-MJSUB-25-00001 (Waiver):** Mr. Pim moved and Commissioner Barksdale seconded approval of a waiver associated with PLN-MJSUB-25-00001. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0. [timestamp: 1:07:07] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00001 – GDK Farm, LLC (Approval with Conditions):** Motioned by Mr. Mickler and seconded by Commissioner Barksdale, the Commission unanimously approved PLN-MJDP-25-00001 for GDK Farm, LLC with conditions as presented. Vote: 9–0. [timestamp: 1:37:29] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00001 – GDK Farm, LLC (Two Waivers):** Mr. Mickler moved and Mr. Wilson seconded approval of two waivers for PLN-MJDP-25-00001, with three additional conditions appended. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0. [timestamp: 1:38:03] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00020 – Hospitality Motor Inns:** Mr. Wilson moved and Mr. Nichol seconded approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00020 for Hospitality Motor Inns subject to 15 conditions identified by staff. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0. [timestamp: 1:43:37] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00022 – Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association:** Mr. Owens moved and Mr. Pim seconded approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00022 for Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association subject to 12 conditions. The motion passed 9–0, with 1 abstention. [timestamp: 1:57:19] - **Bluegrass Airport Expansion – Comprehensive Plan Compliance:** Mr. Mickler moved and Mr. Owens seconded a determination that the Bluegrass Airport expansion is **not** in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 5–4. [timestamp: 2:23:01] - **Deer Haven Park – Comprehensive Plan Compliance:** Mr. Mickler moved and Commissioner Worth seconded a determination that the Deer Haven Park proposal **is** in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 8–1, with 1 abstention. [timestamp: 2:37:01] ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period. [timestamp: 2:36:14] - **Mr. Murphy**, representing North 40 Properties, spoke in support of the **Deer Haven Park** project. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposal, citing demand for such a facility within the neighborhood. No additional public comments were recorded for this meeting. ## Contested Items - **Bluegrass Airport Expansion:** The commission considered a proposal related to the expansion of Bluegrass Airport, which resulted in a split vote. The item was ultimately deemed not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Commissioners raised concerns specifically around environmental goals and parking design standards as the basis for the finding of non-compliance. No further details regarding the vote tally, individual commissioner positions, or the specific nature of the proposed expansion were provided in the available data. ## Final Subdivision Plans - LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INC., SECTION 1, LOT 7 (AMD) [timestamp: 1:05:57] The Commission took up the amended final subdivision plan for Lexmark International Inc., Section 1, Lot 7. The proposal involves subdividing a single existing lot into three lots and establishing sanitary and storm easements on the property. A representative from Abbie Jones Consulting presented the plan to the Commission. Prior to the full Commission meeting, the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the application and recommended approval subject to conditions. The Commission approved the plan in accordance with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. ## Preliminary Subdivision Plans - LEXINGTON CENTER CORPORATION HIGH STREET PARKING LOT PROPERTY [timestamp: 1:07:07] The Commission took up agenda item 2, a request for preliminary subdivision plan approval from Lexington Center Corporation for its High Street Parking Lot property. The plan proposes the creation of 5 lots and depicts the associated street layout for the site. Gresham Smith was the key speaker presenting on this item. Prior to the full Commission's consideration, the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the proposal and recommended approval subject to conditions. The Commission approved the preliminary subdivision plans, consistent with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. ## Development Plans - PAPPERT PROPERTY (AMD) [timestamp: 1:37:29] The Commission took up Agenda Item 3, an amendment to the development plans for the Pappert Property. The amendment revises the street layout for single-family dwellings within the development. EA Partners presented on behalf of the project. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the amendment and recommended re-approval subject to conditions. The Commission considered the Subdivision Committee's recommendation and the proposed street layout changes before reaching a decision. The amendment was approved. ## Development Plans - GDK FARM, LLC (TURNER PROPERTY) [timestamp: 1:38:03] The Commission took up Agenda Item 4, a development plan submitted by GDK Farm, LLC for the property known as the Turner Property. The plan was presented by Eagle Engineering and calls for the development of **9 single-family residential lots** and **20 townhomes**. Prior to the full Commission meeting, the Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended approval subject to conditions. The Commission ultimately approved the development plan. *Note: Specific conditions attached to the approval, individual commissioner comments, and any concerns raised during deliberation are not reflected in the available meeting data for this item.* ## Development Plans - LOCUST HILL SHOPPING CENTER (B-6P AREA) (JAGGERS) (AMD) The Commission took up Agenda Item 5, an amendment to the development plans for the Locust Hill Shopping Center, located within a B-6P zoning area, involving a Jaggers restaurant. The amendment proposed a revised building and parking layout for the site, along with the addition of a double car drive-through. The plans were presented by Greenberg Farrow, the firm representing the applicant. Prior to the full Commission's consideration, the Subdivision Committee reviewed the amendment and recommended postponement. In keeping with that recommendation, the item was postponed by the Commission and did not advance to a final decision at this meeting. No additional details regarding the specific concerns that prompted the Subdivision Committee's postponement recommendation are reflected in the available meeting record. ## Development Plans - LEESTOWN INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT 1, BLOCK B, LOTS 1A & 2 This agenda item (Item 6) addressed development plans for Lots 1A and 2 in Block B of Leestown Industrial Park, Unit 1. The plan depicts a proposed structure along with associated site improvements for the two lots. **Presenter:** Banks Engineering represented the applicant and presented the development plans to the Commission. **Background:** Prior to the full Commission meeting, the Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions. **Outcome:** The Commission approved the development plans, consistent with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. The approval was granted with conditions, though the specific conditions are not detailed in the available meeting record. No additional details regarding specific concerns raised during discussion, the nature of the proposed structure, or the precise conditions attached to the approval are reflected in the available meeting data. ## Development Plans - HOSPITALITY MOTOR INNS (BP OIL INC.) (AMD) [timestamp: 1:43:37] The Commission took up Agenda Item 7, an amendment to the development plan for Hospitality Motor Inns (BP Oil Inc.). The amendment proposes the removal of an existing gas station on the site and the construction of a new building in a different location within the same property. A representative from **Earthcycle Design** presented on behalf of the applicant, outlining the scope of the proposed changes under the amendment. Prior to the full Commission's consideration, the **Subdivision Committee had reviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions**. The Commission considered the amendment and ultimately **approved** the item, consistent with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. ## Development Plans - SCHROYER PROPERTY LOTS 3 & 4 (PALOMAR PLACE) (AMD) The Commission considered an amendment to the development plans for Lots 3 & 4 of the Schroyer Property, located within the Palomar Place development in the R-4 zone. The amendment addressed the building and parking layout for the two lots. Earthcycle Design presented on behalf of the applicant. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the proposal and recommended approval subject to conditions. The Commission approved the amended development plans as recommended by the Subdivision Committee. ## Development Plans - SHRINERS HOSPITAL/MASONIC TEMPLE ASSOCIATION OF LEXINGTON, L [timestamp: 1:57:19] The Commission took up Agenda Item 9, an amendment to the development plans for the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington, Lots 1 & 2. The amendment sought to add an accessory drive-through facility to the site, along with revisions to the parking layout and open space configuration. A representative from Vision Engineering presented the proposal on behalf of the applicant. The amendment represented a modification to the previously approved development plan, with the drive-through facility serving as the primary new element introduced through this revision. Prior to the full Commission hearing, the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the application and recommended approval subject to conditions. No significant concerns or notable debate were recorded during the Commission's consideration of the item. The Commission approved the amended development plans for Lots 1 & 2 in accordance with the Subdivision Committee's recommendation. ## Development Plans - COVEY RIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LOT 4 The Commission considered development plans submitted by **D & J Realty, Inc.** for **Lot 4 of the Covey Ridge Development**. The proposal involves the construction of a facility intended for the **indoor storage of large recreational vehicles**. Prior to the full Commission meeting, the **Subdivision Committee reviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions**. The specifics of those conditions are not detailed in the available meeting record. The Commission ultimately **approved** the development plans for the Covey Ridge Development, Lot 4. *No transcript timestamp is available for this agenda item.* ## Development Plans - CHARLES & DARLENE MARTHA PROPERTY This agenda item (Item 11) addressed development plans for the Charles & Darlene Martha property, with the submitted plan depicting the building layout, parking, and overall site arrangement for a commercial wood lot operation. The presentation was made by **Contour Collaborative, LLC**, who represented the project before the Commission. The plan provided details on the proposed physical layout of the commercial wood lot, including the placement of structures and parking facilities on the site. Prior to the full Commission meeting, the **Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions**. The Commission considered this recommendation as part of its deliberations on the item. The Commission ultimately **approved** the development plans for the Charles & Darlene Martha property, consistent with the Subdivision Committee's conditional recommendation. ## Public Facilities Review - Bluegrass Airport [timestamp: 2:23:01] The Commission took up Agenda Item 12, a Public Facilities Review for a proposed expansion of Bluegrass Airport. The project as presented included expansion of administrative offices, relocation of the Aviation Museum, and expansion of parking areas. Key speakers on this item included representatives from HDR and Tyler Miller, who presented details of the proposed expansion to the Commission. - The review covered multiple components of the airport expansion project, including administrative office space, the repositioning of the Aviation Museum on the site, and additional parking capacity. - Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission determined that the proposed project was **not in compliance** with the applicable review standards. The Public Facilities Review process is used to evaluate whether proposed public facility projects are consistent with adopted plans and policies. The not-in-compliance finding indicates the project, as submitted, did not meet the necessary criteria under that review. ## Public Facilities Review - Deer Haven Park [timestamp: 2:37:01] Agenda Item 13 brought before the Commission a Public Facilities Review for Deer Haven Park, a proposed new city park. The item was classified as a discussion and was presented by Parks and Recreation Staff. The review covered plans for the new park facility, which is proposed to include the following amenities: - **Pickleball courts** - **A playground** - **A shelter** Parks and Recreation Staff presented the proposal to the Commission as part of the required Public Facilities Review process, which evaluates whether proposed public infrastructure is consistent with applicable plans and standards. The Commission determined that the proposed Deer Haven Park is **in compliance**, concluding the review with a favorable outcome for the project. *Note: Detailed discussion points, specific concerns raised, and additional commentary beyond what is reflected in the available structured data are not captured in the provided record for this item.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MJSUB-25-00001 with 12 conditions as presented by staff - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of waiver for PLN-MJSUB-25-00001 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00001 GDK Farm, LLC with conditions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of two waivers for PLN-MJDP-25-00001 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00020 Hospitality Motor Inns with conditions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00022 Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association with conditions - **Motion** — passed (5-4): Determination that Bluegrass Airport expansion is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan - **Motion** — passed (8-1): Determination that Deer Haven Park proposal is in compliance with the comprehensive plan --- ## Full transcript I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. Yeah. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. I wish I can remember these songs, you know , whatever. Principal arterials, West High, West Maxwell, and South Broadway are all arterials. And they are proposing, we have the existing Lexington Center drive, but they are proposing two access points along West High, two access points along West Maxwell. And to relocate the existing access on this lot three a little bit to the northeast along South Broadway. So they don't meet the 1,600 feet for the required access spacing along arterials. But given that this is an intensive urban core area, it's in character with the spacing along those corridors elsewhere in the vicinity. We found that that will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in regards to that request. And that graining the waiver is consistent with the intent of Article 1-5B for design innovation, large scale development, and Article 1-5C for infill and redevelopment facilitation of the land subdivision regulations. The second waiver request is for alternate cross sections. They are proposing along private street B and along private street D and a portion of Lexington Center to only have sidewalks on one side. Lexington Center Drive on the south east side, there are existing developments and there's not really room on that side for sidewalks. They've worked with our bicycle pedestrian coordinator to improve the connectivity in this area along Lexington Center Drive to make sure the pedestrians can get through. And access the entire development. So staff does recommend approval of the requested waivers of Article 6-8Q2B, Article 6-13C and Exhibit 6-3 of the land subdivision regulations. Finding that the requests are consistent with the land subdivision regulations. And that they will not adversely restrict pedestrian or vehicular access and will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. That, if you all have any questions for me. All right. Do we have any questions for Chris? Mr. Mickler. Yeah, quick question on lot one, the street that goes through there now, is that Patterson? Yes. And is that a public street now? I believe so. No, is it not? No. It's not a public street now. And then the, I'm just the, that lot one is then being split and has a easement through for the street, is that the idea? It's proposed to be a multi-story parking structure and they want to maintain that access to the structure through the lot one. That's why they're asking for it to be an access easement and not a private street. And then it would be a easement through the structure, essentially? Correct. Okay, thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions. Thank you, Chris. Do we have anything for our applicant today? Good afternoon, my name is Andrew Walls, I'm the civil engineer for the project with Gresham Smith. As we covered the two waivers, just want to speak to both of those. So Patterson Street, existing private road that goes through the parking lots for Rupp Arena, we're maintaining that access. There's a left turn lane on Maxwell Street into Patterson, so we'll be utilizing that into what would be the future development for lot one. So that would be a private access easement. And then on the West High Street, we would be realigning the driveway connection and moving that further to the north of High Street, so that connection is being shifted. And then, of course, we're adding two primary connections through our main spine road to the development, private street A, one connection on High Street, one connection on Maxwell. And then the connection for South Broadway, we're actually improving that separation from the intersection of South Broadway and Maxwell by moving that to the north for that driveway entrance. As far as the sidewalk conditions, if you want to start with Private Street B on the northwest side of the development, those are residential homes to the northwest of our property. We don't want to put sidewalk behind people's property, so we're keeping that on our side of the development. And then, looking at Lexington Center Drive, as Chris spoke to previously, the back of curb is up against the parking structure for Lex City Live at the corner. And then that continues to the parking garage on Lexington Center Drive, so there isn't any room for sidewalk there. And then we would also, working with Scott Thompson to maintain the pedestrian connectivity, we did add a piece of sidewalk there behind Lexington Center Drive where there is availability, where the condominium's behind the building, there is room for sidewalk to have the connection through to Private Street C. Does any other questions? Thank you. I'm happy to answer. We have any other questions? Thank you. Ms. Davis. Thank you, Chair. I have two questions. One is section KK, which is at the bottom, kind of southeast plan around unit, sorry, lot three. You've got a, I think a five or a five and a half foot kind of tree planting area, it looks like. Which is far smaller, well, a bit smaller than the rest of that. It's at Maxwell Street that you're facing, why could it not be consistent with the other sections, cross sections? Yes, so that is the existing cross section from Maxwell will be replacing the sidewalk there and maintaining what is existing as far as the landscape buffer. And the urban forester was okay with that? Yes, I approve this one. Second question is, I believe that the plan east side of the, that's close to Marino Street, which is Woodward Heights, which is a historic overlay neighborhood. Will there be, and I'm sorry if I can't read the plan at the same time I'm talking. What is going to be the interface between the backyards of Marino Street and the back of your development where the parking is? At this stage of the design, we haven't finalized what that would be. There is a landscape buffer, so we will probably do a screen wall to make sure that there's a barrier between the development and those homes. Of course, all of that will be worked through with the neighborhood association and coordinated once we get through development stage. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Sure. Do we have any other questions at this time, Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Owens. If I may, thank you, and I'd kind of say this has probably been anticipated for some time. There's various rumors as to what all will be there. I know you're just lotting it off. Can you give us some information as to what you're planning for this? So we're still in preliminary design. I have Andy Van Pelt with Lincoln Properties here, a development team. We can speak to vaguely what each of the lots is going to be, and I'll have him address that. Yeah, as Andrew mentioned, we're still in early design stages, but we are looking at mixed use. As stated earlier, lot one is slated to be a garage with some retail frontage. Lot four, we're working with a grocer to put them on that lot. Lots two and three are largely going to be multifamily with some retail liner. The main spine road is going to be our main retail thoroughfare, and lot five is currently retail, garage, and then potentially a hotel. So there's a lot of moving pieces. We're still extremely early, but that's sort of a very high-level framework. Some of us last week got a little prelude to this, and I just wanted everyone to be able to see it and hear it and so forth. You know, we've been used to parking, parking and parking down there. How are you accommodating the parking for yourself now? There's requirements to maintain a certain level of public parking, which we will maintain. All of the multifamily and retail will be self-contained in its parking. Structured parking? Correct. Pretty much each lot? Right now, there is structured parking, I believe, on each lot, yes. Okay, very good. Thank you, sir. And as I recall, in subdivision committee also, there was conversation about the fact that with the grocery store there, the times for unloading are not going to cause problems for the rest of the folks using that area. Is that right? Sure, I could speak to that a little bit. Lot four, as we mentioned, would be future grocery store development. So Lexington Center Drive is the back of house, the rear of that, where we show striping and truck-only access on the southern portion to the Maxwell entrance. The reason for that driveway entrance being so large is that is the loading dock for the grocery store. And that will all be addressed in the development plan. All right, do we have anything else? Yeah. Mr. Pim? In the subdivision, when we looked at this, the access on Broadway, that'll be determined by the state, right? Yes, we have a traffic engineer involved. What we're showing right now is a striped left turn lane. So it will not be a left turn lane during normal day conditions. That will be used for game days only, controlled access on a left turn to Broadway through an officer position navigating and getting vehicles out of the development. So you all have a plan for game day and then a regular plan? Yes, we will have a plan for game day, for sure. Thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions at this point? Seeing none, thank you, applicant. Is anyone here from the public who would care to speak to this plan today? Okay, seeing none, this is the time for commissioned comment or discussion or questions or motion. Comment, really glad to see a grocery store downtown. Mr. Pim? Sure. Well now, so I get the right protocol here. Do you want to do the waiver first? Dealer's choice, you pick. If you don't mind, I will start with the, on page two, PLNMJSUB25-1 with the 12 conditions as presented by staff. Thank you, Mr. Pim. Do we have a second? Second from Commissioner Barksdale. Thank you. Any discussion? Mr. Chair? Mr. Owens, yes. I think we probably should note that there are still 12 conditions. However, there are revisions. Number 12 has been reworded to denote access points as opposed to discuss access to South Broadway. Mr. Pim, are you okay with that? That's fine, thank you. Okay, and Ms. Barksdale? Okay. All right, with that, who seconded? Second. Commissioner Barksdale did. Okay, as amended, do we have any discussion to that motion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. I'd like to vote, but I can't get rid of the, there you go. Okay, so that carries unanimously as well. And then we need a second motion. You need the waiver? The waiver? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN-MJ-SUB25-1 with the waivers as presented by staff. Thank you, Mr. Pim. Second from Commissioner Barksdale. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. All righty. Mr. Davis, thank you, sir. All right, that also carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, applicants. Now, am I correct that we're on page, so Lexmark International appears again on page three? Or is that a, that's a mistake. Or am I right that we are on page three, plan B? It's a four. Page four. Four, okay, sorry. Thank you. GDK, page four. And each one has a part. Okay, our next plan, PLN-MJ-DP25-1, GDK Farm, LLC, Turner Property. This is located at 5447 Tate's Creek Road. And the purpose of this plan is to develop nine single family residential lots and 20 townhomes. This property is located along, this is Tate's Creek Road. And then this is the bottom edge of the development on this plan is the Fayette Jessamine County line. The property does, or the development is proposed to connect to Tykes Pass. And then Tate's Creek Road intersects with Brannon, just a little bit to the south of this development. And the proposed road here does connect into a development in Jessamine County that also connects through to Brannon. Showing the nine single family homes in this area along Tykes Pass. And then 20 townhomes along access easements, accessed off of this central drive. We do have 12 standard sign offs, including engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality, bike pad, green space, division of fire, division of waste management. And then documentation and division of water quality's approval of the capacity assurance program requirements and the US Postal Service. And then we do have additional- This corner, this corner, I'm not sure which. Additional conditions to amend the site statistics to utilize the standard site statistics box. Provide a lighting plan for townhome area per article 30 of the zoning ordinance. And then provided the planning commission finds that the use of access easements for salt access and frontage is appropriate for lot 10 through 29, we do have a waiver request. Denote timing of sanitary sewer improvements relative to pump station capacity per note 22 on the preliminary development plan. Update driveways for townhomes to meet article 6-5B. And then the second waiver is provided the planning commission grants a waiver of exhibit 6-3 of the land subdivision regulations for the entrance road street cross section. And then discuss storm water detention per note 21 on preliminary development plan. And discuss the resolution of access to Tate's Creek Road per note 23 on the preliminary development plan. In regards to the waiver request, the first request is for a waiver to article 6-4C of the land subdivision regulations for lot frontage and salt access from an access easement. And that is what they're showing on the plan is the townhomes all being accessed from easements and not having frontage on a public street in this location along Tate's Creek. It's just not practical for the townhomes to access directly off Tate's Creek. And then the second request is a waiver from exhibit 6-3 of the land subdivision regulations for an alternative cross section for residential collector street. And they're showing here, what exists now is there's a farm road aligned with, I believe they're maple trees, and they want to preserve that farm road as a pedestrian amenity in the median between separated drive aisles as an entry feature. And so they're requesting an alternate cross section for that. Staff does recommend approval of the requested waiver article 6-4C for the following reasons. Graining the requested waiver will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare as the lots will have adequate vehicular access. And graining the waiver is consistent with the intent of article 1-5A of the land subdivision regulations for exceptional hardship as access in any other manner for the 15 townhomes which face Tate's Creek Road. And for the five townhomes which are directly behind would be difficult. Existing topography and drainage patterns also limit connectivity options. And the findings for that are allowing the use of access easement and assault access to the townhouse lots is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the land subdivision regulations and will not negatively impact public health and safety. And then in regards to the second waiver request of exhibit 6-3, the findings allow for the use of alternate cross section as appropriate and will not negatively impact public health and safety as long as the lanes are expanded to 20 feet of pavement in each direction between Tate's Creek Road and Tykes Pass. The division of fire and emergency services has requested that each lane of the boulevard be a minimum of 20 feet in width in order to maintain adequate access between Tate's Creek Road and Tykes Pass. So with that, I will open up for questions. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Finn. I kind of hate to ask this question. Doesn't this have to have a zone change? Okay. December of 23. Okay. Nathan just said it was in December of 2023. What were the zone changes from and to? I believe it was AR to R3. Does that sound right? Yeah. AR to R3. Okay. Yeah. Mr. McClure. I realize that we're just looking at the Fayette County part, but I see the property ownership is the same. So I presume this is a project that just is crossing both. Correct. County line, so it's not really, this project is not really ending here. It's actually a larger project. That's correct. They will share street, some common area, detention basin. So it's contiguous. It's just across the county line. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Chris? Yes, Ms. Davis. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris. Not to be too persnickety, but I'm wondering, at the bottom of the plan, there's like some part of what it looks like is part of the development that hasn't been shaded green. Is that just an oversight, or is there a different, what's going on there? Are you talking about this area there? Yeah, that. It's just an oversight. Oversight. It should be green as well. Okay. And then I recognize or realize that the brown shaded areas are intended to be the residences. Are the gray shaded areas adjacent to the roadway meant to be garages or parking? I guess why is that denoted in such detail on the final plan? Yeah, each area has like a gray shade kind of, at least they do on mine. Would that just be the concrete driveway? It might be the sidewalks. Or the drive. I realize aesthetics are not our thing. Is it this area? Yeah. But I'm wondering, does that mean that from Tate's Creek, you're going to see kind of the back, essentially, of the house? Or the garage entrance, or the road, not having the house as the frontage. I believe they'll face Tate's Creek. As the frontage thing. The applicant says he can address that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Billings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. My name is Nathan Billings. Pardon me, I'm with Billings Law Firm. And it's my pleasure to represent. Turner Estate today is the developer of this piece of property. I should have a slide show up. Is it ready to go? There we go. With respect to your question, Ms. Davis, with respect to the townhomes, these are designed to be similar to the ones on Tate's Creek Road across from, like, Emanuel Baptist and Centenary. Where the front of the townhouse has the front entry and the garages. And the space you'll see on the front of each townhouse has, the level of detail is hard to see because we have to fit everything on a plan. But you're going to have a small yard, green space, and then the driveway. And then you'll have another driveway that abuts to it and then a green space. So the idea is you have two townhouses, the driveways are sort of next to each other, and then you have green space. And then you have a sidewalk that also goes across the front. And I'll show you more detail in a minute. But visually, that way you can see from Tate's Creek, you would see very similar to what the townhouses are across from the churches just past Alumni Drive if you drive south. Just conceptually. I do have a schematic of what those could look like. I didn't put that in my presentation today. But that's, I think, good enough for what we're talking about for this stage today. So for context, as Mr. Michler correctly noted, this is actually a pretty unique project. In that we're developing three separate pieces of property across a county line into a single development. And inside of this, it's actually going to have two development pieces or two HOAs. One will be a master association for both the Fayette County and the Jessamine County parcels. There will be a second association for the townhouses that you've already seen and we'll talk about in a second. So this is the Fayette County portion. Let me see. How do I zoom in here? Is it the top button? Yeah, we go. So this is the Fayette County portion along Tate's Creek. Of course, you have Brandon Road down here. It comes around. The goal of this is that it connects the Fayette County property that comes off of Tykes Pass and Crestfield Lane. Crestfield Lane continues down into Jessamine County. The county line is right about here. Crestfield Lane comes down and stubs into this property here. So we have two different owners, three different pieces of property, and we're trying to do it as a comprehensive development. And we're going to do it across county lines. Let me add another complication. We're going to have a sewer in Jessamine County that's going to be pumped into Fayette County and go back into Jessamine County. So this is fun. And nothing like this has ever been done. So when we bought this property, we spent about six months with staff in both counties walking through the process of this. And thankfully, Mr. Young, who now works for Long Rain Planning for you all, has a bunch of institutional knowledge on the Jessamine County side should staff need to know that information. So this is the Fayette County piece of property. Then this is the Jessamine County piece of property that the same Mr. Turner also owns. And then this is the third piece of property. So you can sort of see conceptually how they all fit together. The exception to this whole development is the piece down here in the corner that is not for sale and not for development. But we're very mindful of respecting that owner's property, and you'll see how we're doing that as we walk through this. So this is the Fayette County piece. This is really what you're voting on. You've already seen that from staff. I can come back to that in a minute. But I want to show you the other two pieces and how they connect. The biggest piece of this is you'll see the connection to Jessamine County right here. This narrows right here for two reasons. Number one is the existing farm road, as it crosses the county line, actually turns. And if you look closely on the plan here, you can see the trees, how they come this way. This is where the road runs currently. So we're going to take the road straight up the hill. Second is when we get to Jessamine County, they don't have the tree-lined road already existing, so we don't want to create the new roads. We have to sort of narrow from what we want to keep into Jessamine County at that point, if that makes sense. So this is where it would connect in to the Fayette County portion. You'll see how they match up. That's the tree line again. This plan was approved in Jessamine County in February with unanimous approval by their planning commission. You'll see down here at the end, this is Bill Justice's farm. I talked about a second ago how we're respecting it. You'll notice here we have a non-buildable lot on the Jessamine County side that surrounds his property. So the reason why is we're sort of losing some buildable space, but he wanted a buffer between the development and his property, so we've created that. We're actually going to sell that to him so that he can own the buffer around his property, if that makes sense. And then you'll see down here, again, this is in the Fayette. This is in Jessamine County, but it's an HOA open space detention area down at the very bottom of the hill. One of the notes is talk about stormwater. And so basically all the water from this site, from the Turner property, runs down to this corner where it goes underground, and it pipes basically from about somewhere in this area down across Brandon Road and dumps into a creek on the other side there. Then the third piece of this property is, I call it the Pottinger piece. This is where it connects into the Turner piece. Let me go back real quick. Oops, how do I go back on this? There we go. So you'll see that the connection here in Jessamine County connects to the third piece of this, which is then this piece right here. It comes down, connects back into Crestfield Lane here, and it comes out and then connects into Brandon Road right across from another development on Brandon called Serenity Estates that the same developer, Mr. Turner, then built in Jessamine County a couple years ago. So we're trying to align some roads so we have really good connectivity between the two counties. We're connecting two additional access points between the counties. We're creating two main entranceways. The main entrance is off of Tate's Creek you'll see in a second. The secondary one then will be this one here off of Brandon. Again, I know it's not in the Fayette County, but I wanted to make sure I show you all the vision of how we're trying to tie these together into a comprehensive development. So this is back to the Tate's Creek side. So if you would imagine, this today is the current farm entrance, and there's a farm road. You can see it goes right down through here in the middle. It has maple trees on each side. One of the key things that Mr. Turner wants to do is to keep that farm road and the tree-lined farm road as his vision for the sanctuary. And so what we've had to do is to create our own cross section that doesn't fit any of the designed engineering plans, which is one of our requests for waivers today, is to find that we can essentially build roads on the outside, on the north and on the south of that tree-lined path. The second thing is we want to reduce that path from 10-foot today to 8-foot, because we're going to have to take out the asphalt and we have to put down new pavers, and we want to make sure we have enough room there for the tree roots that we're not going to damage those as part of it. I think staff said our application was originally for 17-and-a-half-foot asphalt, and I believe you said that fire wants a 20-foot asphalt road in and out. Is that correct, Mr. Beatty? Okay. I just want to make sure I noted that because we didn't hear that before today, but I want to make sure I tell the applicant. Is that good? Okay. You'll see when we come in the subdivision here, we'll have to get some encroachment permits from the state because part of this might be on the state property. If they don't allow it, we can't build on their property. And you'll see the first townhome sort of comes in over to the side, on each side, with the hammerheads. The townhouses aren't put on this design, on this rendering, because I wanted you all to see the green space. There's a pretty significant drainage swell in the property that runs back along here right now. That's been cleaned up over the last year-and-a-half. Dead trees have been removed. If you go out there today, you'll see big rocks have been removed. The trees have been cleaned up and limbed up. I will tell you functionally, because I've seen it as recent as last Saturday when it was raining, how much better it drains now, having been cleaned up, than just pulling water. So that's the green space area that we have. The townhouses, another rendering with an angle. And hopefully you can get the idea of how the entrance to the subdivision, the main entrance, is here off Tate's Creek, not the other three ways, and how we're trying to preserve that tree-lined farm entrance. Another rendering from another angle. This is looking from Tate's Creek in at the first parking area. So if you were to look, we're now looking at the parking area that's sort of right here from different views. The first view will be at this point looking in, and then we're going to see a couple other ones. Just so you can see that although we have parking on the Tate's Creek side of the townhouses, how we're trying to screen it with just a location. We think it's the best location. That's another view of it. We'll have pedestal mailboxes for whenever the Postal Service finally approves. And that's sort of a rendering of the tree-lined path that you get the idea of how we're trying to preserve the farm road. Another picture of that. That's the proposed entrance on Brandon. Again, it's not the Fayette County side. But you'll see the difference of the two entrances. While this is still a nice entrance, it's not near the grandeur of the main Tate's Creek entrance where we have the preserved tree line. This is the Jessamine County side of it. In this drawing, the sort of tree-lined path road will stop up here. We have sidewalks that connect this. But this is a corner on the Jessamine County property that's a continuation of that linear park that the HOA will maintain. One of the things you'll note on our development plan is a note that provides, although the right-of-way will be a city right-of-way, that the HOA will be responsible for the green space and trails inside of that right-of-way as an encroachment. The reason we added it as a note on the development plan is then I don't have to go back through the city's departments, which can sometimes take six or eight months. And trust me, it's not fun, just to get an encroachment permit to do that. So if you all grant that today, I believe that takes care of sort of a check-the-box item but makes my life easier long-term. And the city doesn't have to mow, doesn't have to maintain trees, flowers. The HOA will do that. So we have two waiver requests today. The first one is very typical for UC for townhouses, which is just a waiver that allows the townhouses to have access off of an access easement rather than a public street. This is very typical that you all do for townhouses. Mr. Chaney covered the proposed findings in his report. The second one is to permit a waiver of the main street cross-section DD as proposed on the plan from Tate's Creek back to the county line. And we believe those justifications are necessary as well. We also are going to have to go back to the Board of Adjustment for a finding regarding the common space area. Just to let you all know that there's a requirement that it says the minimum dimension is 100 feet, which I think staff reads to be you have to have a 100 by 100 foot box of green space. I don't know that they're incorrect in that, but I will tell you that's our green space on this plan, which more than meets 100 by 100. It's just literally there's dimensions on this that are less than 100. So in a conservative view, we don't technically check that box. So if this is approved today, we have to file an application for a variance for that. We'll go do that. I don't expect there'll be a problem, as I think it's like five and a half acres of green space here, which is not only for the townhouses, but all of the single family homes through the development. I didn't really mention this earlier, but let me just talk quickly, if Mr. Chaney didn't. The lots here are single family detached houses that are intended to reflect the lots on Tykes Pass and on Crestfield. Those lot sizes meet or exceed the ones on Crestfield. So what we're trying to do is provide a transition from what's the existing houses to single family to townhouses. And the ones in Jessamine County, I did talk about it at the zone change, but not today, on this side of the property line are average of one acre each. So you sort of have three housing types. You sort of have smaller single family detached. You have the townhouses. And then you have larger estate lots. So we like the fact that there's, again, that's a zone change issue. But just so you all know conceptually what you're seeing here. With that, I'm glad to take any questions. Thank you, Nathan. Do we have any questions for Mr. Billings? Mr. Billings, who is going to be responsible for maintaining the farm road? The farm road inside? Are you talking about the center line road right in the middle here? That's the HOA responsibility. There's a note on the development plan that specifically says the HOA has an encroachment to and will maintain all the green spaces and common spaces. And I don't have the blowup, but I think it says from inside of asphalt to inside of asphalt. Okay. So that way it's not a city obligation at all. So that becomes a walkway instead of a farm road. That's correct. The farm road basically becomes a walkway, bike path. I call it a linear park because it extends from the entrance here all the way down and then the Jessamine County Linear Park piece is right here. Well, my concern is farm roads don't do real well when you quit driving on them. Yeah. So, well, we have to take out the farm road and put in the walkable pavers that will actually be on that area. So the area between the trees, I think it's about 10 foot in average asphalt. It comes in and out a little bit as you know how farm roads go. The goal is to reduce that to 8 foot. And then if you look at the renderings, it's going to be a mixture of pavers, permeable pavers, and concrete throughout that. But it's HOA responsibility and it's very clear. We want the HOA to be responsible. We don't want the city. Well, but my point is farm roads, if you don't drive on them, they don't stay very good. Oh, yeah. Grass grows through them. So you're doing the right thing. Yeah. And we don't want it to stay asphalt because that's not the best service for the pedestrian. Thank you. And we've worked with Scott Thompson to make sure that you'll see there's lots of sidewalks on this. It's probably overconnected with pedestrian walkways, but that's okay. Thank you. We were supposed to be here in February. We postponed for three months, I guess, to keep working on some other issues. So I'm very comfortable that what we have is a really good development now. Okay. Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Willings, your enthusiasm is certainly evident in how you're seeing it as three pieces of land coming together, which is very cool. I mean, has that ever been done before to cross county lines with one development? Neither planning staff in either county can remember a project that sort of involves that complication. Well, good for you. So I have kind of just a question about the arrangement of the parking. Maybe you want to go back to the first slide that shows the development plan. And I know that parking requirements have changed, become very much lessened recently. But I'm curious about there are a couple of places, and it might be hard to see at this scale, where you have some clusters of maybe five parking places. I assume those are intended maybe for guests. What happens if you have, you know, more guests than can fit in those spaces? And did you give any consideration to having them clustered more conveniently to all of them rather than just kind of the ends of some of them? So that's a great question. So that's actually one of the things that resulted in the delays is walking through the parking arrangement, I think, pretty thoroughly. So you'll see on the plan here there's four designated parking spots. We're going to have one in the front here. Actually, let me see. Change this back to the blow-up view. Okay. Is it the top button? The top button, yeah. Well, but now it went red on me. Well, one is right here. Uh-huh. One is right here. Another one is down here. And that's the pump station down here, by the way. And the other one is here. And there's, I believe, five in each one of those. Every driveway is also intended for double parking as well as a two-car garage. The street as well, even at 17.5 feet, as we proposed right now, that fire wants 20 feet, you will have parking along the street if it's necessary. And so there may be times when those parking things may get overflowing. Having monitored the one on Tate's Creek, because I live by there, so I drive by there every day, twice a day, we have the same number of parking spots per unit as what they have, and that's never been full to our understanding. So there may be a Saturday night where somebody has a Christmas party and it's going to get bad, but that's no different than anywhere in Lexington. Sure. But on what I would say is the overwhelming vast majority, we feel pretty comfortable that these extra parking spaces are adequate for the number of units we have. Okay. Will parking be allowed on the, I guess, the frontage road, the access road, essentially, at the top? You're talking about, like, for example, along here? Yes. And along here? Yes. No, that's not intended for parking, because you may have people backing out of the driveways from the townhouses, and while we have turnarounds here, we don't want there to be parking on one side of that. We actually looked at that issue. If you know the Patchen townhouses out, Winchester Road, actually have parallel parking along their access easements. We looked at that as a solution, and we determined we didn't want to do that. We'd rather have these parking pads. And I assume that given the, I imagine this will be a rather upscale development. It looks like a very, you know, it will be highly sought after because of its arrangement and its access to green space. I hope that the garage doors are as attractive as the townhomes across from the church and not as unattractive as those that are on, no offense to anybody who lives there, but the many garages that are on Chinoe Road that stick out from the houses and look like they're just backwards. So they're not snout garages. They don't stick out from the front. They're flush. They may have a little eyebrow opening or eyebrow for coverage from rain or something, but they're not snout where they come out five or six feet or even ten feet. I will tell you that the, again, this gets into some really granular detail, but we didn't actually design the layout of the townhouses until we had a design footprint of the townhouses we want to build. And what we did is we took the ones on Tate's Creek and made changes that we heard from those owners to include adding an elevator shaft for each one of those and expanding the footprint out wider to allow for accommodation from those owners. And then we designed the spaces of this. And so I have a rendering. I mean, I know who the contractor on this is. I've got a draft LOI to sell them lots. So I think that these are high end. I mean, I know what it's going to cost for this site, and I know what they're asking per lot once we finalize our construction costs. I think you're going to find that these end up being some of the higher end townhouses that Lexington has seen. And these are not because of the cost of the land and the cost of some of the development, including a massive sewer project that we have to run over a hill to get here because the Jessamine County goes down a hill, up a hill, down a hill, and we don't want to put two pump stations in. So we have like a 25-foot ditch at one point. I wish you luck, and thank you. It's very interesting. Thank you, Chair. All righty. Anything else for Mr. Billings? I suppose not. Thank you, Nathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to comment on this proposed plan today? Seeing none, is there any commission discussion, questions, or a motion? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Before I make the motion, I want to just restate and clarify. So we are looking to we've got two waivers. One is for the cross section, and the second waiver is for the houses to face the easement instead of Tate's Creek. Okay. And then so with that, I'll start with the development plan. So I move to approve PLMJDP 25-1. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Second from Commissioner Barksdale. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will vote. All righty. That is nine in favor. Mr. Jonathan Davis is not present for that vote. That carries. And then I move to approve the two waivers as requested by the applicant for the alternative cross section and for the townhouses to face the easement. With the three additional conditions at the end. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Do we have a second from Mr. Wilson? Any discussion? If not, we will vote. All right. That also carries with nine in the affirmative. Mr. Jonathan Davis being not present. Thank you, Nathan. So that takes us over to, I believe, page six, Hospitality Motor Inns. Is that right, Chris? It's page six, letter F. And a housekeeping item. We have to vacate this room by 415. Is that correct? Okay. All righty. Thank you. Okay. The next plan we're looking at is PLN-MJDP 25-20, Hospitality Motor Inns, BP Oil Incorporated. This is located at 2115 and 2143 North Broadway. The purpose of this amendment is to depict removal of existing gas station and construction of new building in a different location on the site. So on the overall plan, this is from a – I'm going to try this. Ah, there we go. To the bottom of the plan, this is the exit ramp for I-64, I-75 on to North Broadway. And the North Broadway runs along the plan right. And I believe this is Judy Lane to the top of the plan. Let's see. Let me go through that. So what they're proposing is there's an existing gas station in this location with the existing canopy and existing fuel tanks. The canopy and the fuel tanks will remain in their current locations. And they're proposing to remove the existing building and construct a new C-store along the north side of the property. And so we have, let's see, 12 standard sign-offs. Engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, green space, division of fire, division of waste management, and then documentation of division of water qualities, approval of capacity assurance program requirements, and the United States Postal Service approval. And then we have to denote all buildings, paving, signs, fences, walls, and retaining walls that are depicted, described, or required. This development plan should require a separate review and building permit from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. Denote building line along the interstate frontage. They are showing a 20-foot utility and landscape buffer in this area. And they're using this as their frontage for the building. And there's also a 20-foot building line we just asked as a cleanup item to add building line to that. Correct the purpose of amendment to match the staff report. And then there are two discussion items. And I believe we did discuss these in subdivision committee. And this may be on me a little bit, learning the process, but I think we could have resolved those at subdivision committee. The first is to discuss the use of vehicle rental operation, which is not permitted in the B5P zone. And the applicant did indicate that that rental operation wouldn't continue. And then to discuss the potential pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalk along North Broadway. There is a proposal for a sidewalk. And then there's an existing sidewalk that comes from, I believe it's Dollar General, to this area. So we had some discussions about that. I think those could have been resolved, and I'll try to stay on top of that in the future. Anyway, and with that, I open it up to you all for questions. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for Chris at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Applicant? Good afternoon. Scott Southall with EarthCycle Design. I really don't have any further comments that Chris made. We are in concurrence with the conditions. And as he mentioned, items 16 and 17 were discussed and resolved at the subcommittee. They have been resolved, those two items. Okay. All righty. Thank you, Scott. Do we have any questions for Scott at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Scott. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular plan today? Seeing none, is there any commission discussion, comment, or motion? Save me, Mr. Wilson. Yeah. Make a motion. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if it's agreeable with my colleagues, I move for approval of PLN-MJDP 25-20, Hospitality Motor Ends, with the, do we strike 16 and 17 or just put resolve there? Strike them. Okay. Then with the 15 items identified by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second from Mr. Nichol. Thank you very much. Do we have any comment on that or questions? Mr. Nichol did. Okay. We'll take that to a vote, please. Mr. Owens, are you going to cast a vote? Thank you, sir. All right. That has nine ayes, six nays. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Okay. Now, Cheryl, I suppose we are on page seven, item H, Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple Association. Okay. We're moving forward to Shriners Hospital, Masonic Temple Association of Lexington. Lots one and two. We are back out off of Harrodsburg Road. If you go a little further this way, you'll hit Man o' War where our new Publix is just opening up per the news. But we're going to be over here. This was a proposal where they had at one time had Tupelo Honey and they've moved they've decided to step back on it so they're not moving here and so what we're gonna do is we're gonna add our ice cream shop right in here in this little building. With that ice cream shop they're proposing to have a drive-thru that goes around the building and through here for everyone to get their ice cream. As you can tell we have revised conditions for this and they're all pretty much sign offs. We had one discussion for the drive-thru facility at the subdivision committee there was some concerns and issues because they had traffic going both directions coming this way and that way and we asked for it to be cleared up a little bit to make it a little a little better for everyone so what they proposed is to have a stop bar here so that if you come around this way you can't go further this way it's only one way direction coming this way so it's my understanding that they worked with traffic engineering and they were able to come up with the revisions here so you can come around on the one side bring you through into the drive-thru and through stacking for your ice cream and that way you won't have the conflict behind the buildings so that's why we've taken that one condition off the plan so it's open to you all if you have any other comments or questions thank you Cheryl do we have any questions is the only thing we're talking about the ice cream shop or huh the only thing it's graders ice cream it's my understanding I'm well familiar with it everybody wants graders right so Cheryl is is the a couple of questions what is the kind of heavy line shown to the north of the cars in the ostensible drive-thru like this here uh-huh probably a curb or possibly it does it's not labeled or anything but sometimes we see bollards or a curb so it kind of distinguishes to say that this is the line for the drive-thru uh-huh that could be something that probably the applicant better answering we're and where's the is the order window what order point is I believe it's right up in here point yeah and then so what happens when someone's in a car and they have like six six things they have to get ready and they don't want to like wait for you to there's not really sufficient room for a lot of cars to stack up there and and for someone from graders to run out and give you get their ice cream it looks like they're gonna melt so they're gonna have to do it quick you know how they have like at McDonald's they have like go park in spot number whatever for your for your order number four seven twelve so what the spots in number nine are supposed to be gonna have a lot of kids with ice cream and probably be better to go inside but for a drive-thru I'm not quite sure I'm not real fluent on drive-thru speak so it to me it just seems like this is this is gonna be a problem and in terms of congestion and confusion well it was it's better than what it used to be because I'll let Fred explain it I got a quick I got a quick question does it meet all the requirements necessary per our regulations for you all to present us with an approved recommendation like I said like it's all the requirements is what you're saying yes like I said that I spoke with Dave Filiatro with traffic engineering and he said that that he and Fred had done some emails so this is what they came up with wonderful to resolve this great so with the approval we're meeting all the objective all the objective all the objective requirements right per our zoning regulations yes building regulations yes it is July 1 right now yes thank you yes okay mr. Mickler I have a question for you Cheryl before we switch we when we first saw this plan originally it had a lot more open space they haven't gotten rid of it they still are over parked and then they haven't they haven't removed any of the parking that they proposed at the time of two and then the occupant that they they no longer have was the reason that I needed to add a lot more parking correct but that reason maybe seems a little bit questionable since that occupant is no longer here but the parking is or correct the the proposed app of the proposed restaurant from what Fred said has decided not to move here they have not changed anything other than putting in this area here was all patio space on the previous plan this was all going to be patio space and so they wanted to have a rest have an ice cream shop here so that's why they proposed to have the drive-thru to come around here they changed and added some patio space here right in front of the ice cream shop because these were parking spaces so they've kept all the parking that was previously approved from the other plan but changed the applicants who are going to be taken in the store the building square footage now I know originally when those changes happen there was some disagreement and discussion involving what counted as open space or what counted as usable open space and and how to calculate that and it's my I mean part of that calculation included that patio that's now a drive-thru right right and that's why they took and they added they took the square footage of open space here and added it along here in place of the square footage they have had previously so they applied it in a different location okay thank you alright do we have any other questions before we move on to the applicant thank you sure mr. chairman members of the Planning Commission I am Fred Eastridge with vision engineering the as Cheryl did a great presentation from me on this project I appreciate it to blow honey had to bail out of their lease for certain economic reasons and I'm not sure about but they have gotten the opportunity to get a graders ice cream in here at this location here and graders requires a drive-thru facility for their shop for their business we I have worked with the owner jihad killing Helene has worked with the owner and also traffic engineering and coming up is making this area right here one way and angle parking so that in this heavy dark line would be a painted line to designate the drive-thru area as you know you must stripe off your area where people just wander around aimlessly in a driving lane and then we've also provided a striped area here for some trucks to for brought up here in TRC for deliveries and things like cats we've designated an area for that so miss Davis came up says what happens if you have an order that is large and it takes a few minutes it's too large then they come over and then park here and they can bring their ice cream or out to them if they want to but usually it's not that busy and they don't have to we also have provided an area here and if somebody wants to bail out inside they don't want to use the ice cream place they can come out here and go out this way so we've tried to accommodate the best we can to for the ice cream shop and the local quarters and we do meet all the regulations of the subdivision and zoning ordinance on this plan all righty thank you Fred do we have anything for the applicant mr. a stretch it seemed like one this is definitely improving from when we saw it a week ago you mentioned wonder wandering aimlessly which I can do it myself at times I've got my question is not necessarily with drive-thru itself Cheryl said that on that back what I'm looking at is a back left corner of the ice cream shop she's got a hard stop there she called it something and the plan says do not enter right this is one way so this is a do not enter people cannot enter this should not enter this place they will come here and then circle around you've got a square this behind the the ice cream shop and restaurants you do have two-way traffic that's correct so my concern is the one way traffic that runs parallel to the drive-thru it seems like their only exit is to go into two-way traffic head-on with traffic coming right at him yeah but it's a parking lot sir this traffic speed is very slow it and it'll they'll come in and transition in this way and this traffic will be over on this side okay it wouldn't be a benefit to put bollards or something to direct it back into the correct lane we can't we can we can add by I'm you know I know traffic's is of approval of this and so forth it just seems to me and I agree I wonder aimlessly as well I could drive right into head-on traffic going down through there I'm just asking I'll get with David okay and talk about it I see what he's what he thinks okay thank you sir anything else thank you Fred thank you 31 from the public who would like to comment on this plan today seeing none is there any commissioner comment questions or a motion mr. Owens Oh mr. chair with the revisions I'll move for a recommendation approval of plan 25-22 Shriners Hospital Masonic Temple Association of Lexington with the now 12 conditions thank you thank you mr. Owens thank you mr. Pan seconded any discussion seeing none we will vote okay that carries with one abstention all right our next item on the agenda is are we to Bluegrass Airport page 9 public facilities review hi Daniel I'll do it anyway all right good afternoon everyone Daniel crumb planning staff we actually have two public facility reviews for you all to entertain this afternoon the first is for improvements at Bluegrass Airport and this is specifically to construct some administrative offices they are relocating the Aviation Museum constructing a fuel depot and car rental area and expanding paid on-site parking areas so this is a smaller portion of a number of planned expansions that are going to be occurring at the Bluegrass Airport but this is sort of the first initial scope of what they're ready to move forward now so it's a site that many of y'all are familiar with so just orienting everyone we have her sales road as you're heading out of Fayette County man-of-war running north the south here with the airport occupying a large amount of space in the western portion here the portions that are highlighted in blue are really the areas that we're going to be talking about with the request these are two areas that up till now have been sort of undeveloped and sort of serve as the buffer between the existing airport and man-of-war zoning wise this is all agricultural rural so the the subject property here the airport is one of our rural activity centers is sort of one of those areas where sort of existing employment existing development leads to a different development pattern than we see in most of our agricultural land once again the the the airport being a government entity you know doesn't follow the regular zoning restrictions and so they're coming to before you today for the public facility review here you'll be making a recommendation as to whether or not this is an agreement with the comprehensive plan it can provide conditions or recommendations that adjoin that once again it's a rural activity center so this right here is where the airport is located other examples are the blue sky area out eighth and spoonsboro as well as a couple sprinkled out throughout the county but once again this is outside of the urban service boundary but is operating and playing a little bit different than privately operated land would be in the same zone here we have view of the areas that are going to be proposed for change with this request so this is the view from Manowar Road Manowar Boulevard where you have the existing fence line into the rear you can see the the parking areas associated with the airport this is from the internal drives as you're coming from Manowar into the site once again the existing development being sort of on the right side of this roadway with the areas to the left being proposed for change in a couple different ways the first is an expansion of the parking areas so the folks at the airport indicated that they're intending to add about 800 new parking spaces paid parking spaces that will occur with a slight realignment of their internal roadways once again but this is going to be located in the areas once again closer to Manowar so this portion here is currently kind of green open space and so that will now accommodate parking as well as a relocated Drive on the opposite side so a little bit further down so the the area to the left of the screen here is where we were just talking about Airport Road comes in and kind of bisects those two and then we have the area that is really subject kind of to the the actual building side within the letter of justification for the request the airport notes that they're anticipating some changes to the actual airport terminals itself and so that is going to cause the relocation of administrative services the Bluegrass Aviation Museum and some other key facilities so these two blue boxes you see here are being denoted as three story structures that are going to be administrative offices where we have associated parking here this structure kind of anchoring the corner there of where Manowar serves Airport Drive is going to be the relocation of that Aviation Museum along with sort of the the accompanying pieces for that this portion here at the corner kind of located further into the site is going to be some expanded rental car areas I think it's approximately an acre in size as well as the fueling to kind of support that use so all in all we're looking at an expansion of the parking area construction of new administrative offices relocation of the Aviation Museum as well as that rental car area so as staff was taking a look at this request we we look at the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan as well as the rural lane management plan in this case and once again finding that it was an agreement with with a number of the goals objectives and policies talking about expanding these these areas that kind of facilitate our tourism industry once again attracting these this workforce to help sustain and keep Lexington vibrant and then once again improving our transportation system so the airport just like our other methods of transportation are key in order to ensure that our community is functioning adequately and then once again kind of ensuring that the development that is occurring with our areas especially these rural activity centers are not going to be negatively impacting surrounding agricultural rural settlements or view sheds so we found that it will it will serve the needs of the community it's an agreement with the goals and objectives of the plan and it's a keeping with the rural lane management plan as it is laid out and it's going to benefit the the larger Lexington and Fayette County area so staff at this point is recommending that you find it's an agreement with the comprehensive plan with the one singular added it's not listed on there but it's listed in the staff report one of the comments that staff had as far as a recommendation going back to just the parking areas themselves is just ensuring that we are getting landscaping and other tree canopy within those areas it's a common recommendation when we have when we have kind of parking expansions and the like this is an early iteration of the concept plan for this but to explore opportunities for providing that interior landscaping area was the sole request from from staff at this time or the sole recommendation from staff at this time thanks Daniel of course this being a public facilities review the Planning Commission has we advise or you know but we certainly do not approve or disapprove do we have any questions for Daniel at this time Commissioner Molly Davis thank you thanks Daniel can you just help me understand where that surface parking is located relative to where the Aviation Museum is going in the terminal facility back us up a little bit yes so we've got so this is the existing parking area here the parking expansion would reroute this internal road as well so that the parking expansion would occur further up here whereas further to the south there we have the parcels that would have the Aviation Museum and the other aspects so it's it's really those two chunks with the top being the parking and the bottom corresponding areas relating to those just curious I imagine the Aviation Museum would really like to have a more front and center location at the airport itself to increase tourism was there any consideration to flipping those those two things not within our end no but the we do have representatives from the design team that can kind of speak to where they chose location I would assume that that's Jay just wanted to maintain an interface with the existing parking areas but they can speak to that more specifically just I mean it's and it's not within our realm to do anything I'm just curious for the sake of the Aviation Museum because I know it's a great place yeah mr. Mickler did you have anything yeah I just want to say that you know I think the positives you hit are are definitely valid in how this interacts and serves the community of Lexington and and but I do think that our comprehensive plan specifies climate change goals adding a 800 foot surface area parking in our AG district does not seem to support that having a parking lot that clearly is non-conforming with any of the design regulations this says appears to be non-conforming but there's no way that that is conforming is just again over and over we see these public of our community and Lexington's not following our comprehensive plan in terms of heat island and shade effect and so the expansion is really a function focused entirely on the airport and moving the buildings and in my mind it does not meet the environmental goals in our comprehensive plan specifically with the parking but then also the emphasis on parking instead of alternative means of transit to the airport so I'm gonna tag on that and say if we're gonna have the parking it's anybody from the airport board here representing the airport that's okay I just I'm just gonna say this there are other parts of the country where when they put in a big parking lot they put canopies over those parking lots and solar panels on top and generate electricity there so from my perspective that's the least bad of an option if we're gonna have a big parking lot so I would ask would you all consider doing that and the other thing I'd say is I know a few folks on the airport board have they signed on off on this week I know they want a bigger space if they signed off on what you've proposed here have you have you all talked with him I can let the applicant speak to that okay let's let's see if if there are any other questions for Daniel and then we can move move to the applicant Daniel of question I have the lighting ordinance that we passed I think last year would nothing really none of that would apply to this because they are in essence yes and I imagine there's also specifics that do being an airport that has its own requirements but once again you all can make suggestions about lighting but ultimately you know in the same way that this would not normally be allowed in the AR zone we as the government have a lot more flexibility with that are they proposing any anything in the way of any sort of buffering between their property and the neighboring farm let's say I'll bring back the he's here not in it but not anything other than I imagine that the existing screening or the tree line and fencing along main award looks like it would would not be particularly impacted by this request but I can let the applicant speak to that too and for a PFR is there a notification requirement for this hearing so the person who owns on the agenda but the person who owns that farm they may have no idea this is happening yeah not sure okay all right anything else for Daniel no thank you we'll hear from the applicant and again it's the Planning Commission's thank you Robin for saying that our job is to basically become to a determination of whether or not what they're proposing is in line with the comprehensive plan applicant good afternoon my name is Mark day I'm with HDR I'm design and planning consultant for the airport also former staff member Tyler Miller the chief operating officer for the airport is also here I can tell you for sure over the last two actually three years that we've gone through a number of public meetings and shared very specifically with neighboring owners and even reaching out to the adjacent neighbors trying to as we fit master plan process and updated that and you can go to Bluegrass Airport comm slash master plan and you can see those developments and so as I formerly a staff member all of the comments that we receive from the public it through that process very little had to do with the development most of that was related to air service hey I'd like a destination to go see this this city or this airline but we met directly with Keeneland these two parcels were orphaned back in the 80s when man of war was developed the airport acquired them in January of 2020 and has held on to those until such time that traffic has increased that we need this additional parking and so again it's gone through that public master plan process and at this point with the the design I can tell you for sure that the board has approved that not only through the master plan but in these efforts and they just recently advertised for construction for the parking expansion one of the things that airports struggle with as far as landscaping elements within parking areas is one obviously even though it's a nonprofit organization you're trying to maximize revenue and meet that capacity I fully appreciate those comments I do believe that Tyler and I can take that back to the leadership to see if there is a desire to add more landscaping elements within that and appreciate your comments about the heat island the dilemma that we have with putting additional trees anywhere around property and I fully understand with the surroundings of the airport is wildlife attractants birds and aircraft do not belong in the same space but as you are very aware for where the airport is located there are a number of farms and ponds all over the place that attract a lot of different birds and so the airport has a very active wildlife mitigation plan as well so it's a balance there is an existing tree line along a man-of-war it is not shown on these plans but if you were to drive along there today you you would be able to see what that what that looks like so that that's an existing there's a farm fencing there and all of that was originally put in when man-of-war was developed so there were a number of questions that were put there I'm sure that I've missed one of those so yes the canopy parking the canopy so that also goes back to the cost of parking and so covered parking in the previous expansion there is a covered walkway that ran through there I can tell you honestly we didn't put that in there because of heat island effect we put that there for customer service so that if it was raining and you were parking in those distance spaces you could kind of flock to that one spot and then proceed to the parking garage and then to the terminal so there is this is one of many proposed developments that you're going to see in the next few years from the airport again coming out of that master plan the existing terminal that you all love is going to be demolished in the next 10 or 15 years and an entirely new terminal put in its place that will accommodate future traffic so in order to create space for some of those future terminal elements and to meet the passenger traffic that the airport is currently experiencing if you've parked there any time this year and you've been in a peak period you notice that overflow lot there at the corner of us-60 and man of war is being used and we're even putting people in the grass at times and we're just about to get into peak travel season here so those are top headaches that Tyler and staff have to have to deal with but the airport it's going to take us all year to construct this and but it's been a long-term goal so I think as far as some of the landscape elements we can definitely hit that on the covered parking it's very expensive and if we put that in we have to charge that back to the passenger and having two other airports within 90 miles that have much bigger communities much better air service offerings in some cases this is convenience is part of the sales pitch for this airport when you're making a decision on where you you purchase your tickets so I'm probably rambling now but I can just tell you that as far as the cost of parking it's a very difficult thing for the for the airport as far as providing that coverage we we did recently add some EV and some solar interests with rental car parking areas and so it's it's one of those things that's being looked at but it's not part of this plan okay just thinking down the road this the sales pitch for me is it's not just paying for covered parking it's generating revenue for the airport to reduce some of its operating expenses so that's one piece and the second question was has the airport I'm not the Aviation Museum signed off on on their relocation we are working hand-in-hand with the museum the museum currently is occupying hangars that they moved into in 2010 they're further back in the airport south along Airport Road and they are very desirous of having a more forward-facing spot in the community that location is a dream come true for them the benefit to the airport is they currently occupy two very large hangars that planes that fly could use instead of planes that used to fly and the airport I won't divulge the dollars but because of their education mission the airport takes a significant financial hit by leasing at a lower rate to the Aviation Museum of Kentucky where they're at now compared to where they will go and just the state has recognized their mission and has they were awarded some money in the last not not this session but prior session some money from Economic Development Cabinet to move forward with their plans all righty mr. Pim has there been any discussion about moving general aviation to another location there is general aviation in multiple places around the field and because of our beautiful rolling hills in Kentucky this almost 80 year old airport is constantly moving a little dirt here and a little bit dirt there to develop hangar space but you tell me where you think it ought to go and well you know over a drink I'll be glad to buy one maybe two no I'm talking but to another location oh is it away from this airport yes not at this time okay thank you Molly so just to reiterate which both Judy and Robin said if this is just part of a master plan and there's going to be more happening you do have some structured parking at what point are you going to have to consider structured parking to accommodate it is already so one of our primary hurdles to overcome if you will is relocating the air traffic control tower which sits immediately in front of the terminal and the long-range plan is to build another parking garage in that location but moving and very expensive federal facility is something that I've been working on for 15 years and we still haven't made progress so and I guess just to really reiterate what Tracy Wade said that looks like it has you know very long stretches of parking with no relief no nothing to kind of break it up are you going to take their recommendation to keep the parking standards in terms I know that trees and birds do not mix right but are you going to do anything to provide relief for those customers who might really like to pay more if there were shade in a structure or a tree I cannot commit to you what the airport leadership will do but I can tell you that we will take that that back I mean Tyler is part of the airport leadership he's number he's number two so hey good afternoon Tyler Miller chief operating officer at the Bluegrass Airport thanks for the time today just want to like kind of address the a lot of your concerns about this parking expansion phase if you will specifically this is really a reactionary project we parked over 500 cars in the grass last year and those were passengers that weren't expecting to park in the fairgrounds style parking lots as they're going out for their summer vacation we're building 800 spaces to address those 500 cars we're essentially just keeping up with our growth right now and we were double-digit growth over the last couple of years this is phase one of a much more comprehensive expansion plan that we kind of mentioned already including the terminal building and the rest of the terminal area and a lot of these sustainability elements that you're talking about including solar parking and covered parking shade structures these are being addressed in a much more comprehensive project that's addressed that's addressing the medium and long-term growth this parking project just not to misrepresent it this is really just kind of reactionary to the the explosive growth we've seen in the last year or two so this is just purely addressing capacity but the longer term growth projects will be much more comprehensive okay mr. McClure well I would just say to you as you all bring it back and discuss it to keep in mind that the only reason you all can even propose a parking lot this bad is because you don't have to follow even the most bare minimum standards that we have in our city and so every other developer has to balance those standards and you do not that does not mean that I think that this type of parking lot complies with the comprehensive plan being completely automobile centric not addressing the environmental standards we've put forward in our parking lot designs and our no vote wall yes is not gonna make you do a better parking lot just keep in mind that any shopping center any mall any development in Lexington that is for profit has to do a better job than this one thank you happy to take that back we'll integrate that better Thank You mr. Miller and and I would just say particularly when you're bordering HR HR AR land it's it's always good to be a good neighbor and light pollution is certainly a big part of that I know when you have an airport you're gonna have a lot of light pollution and that's understandable but I would look at the ordinance we passed last year about lighting and and take as much of that into consideration as you can I certainly will and I think you'd be surprised at how sensitive we need to be to light pollution the folks in the air traffic control tower and pilots coming in are very sensitive to any light that's not being very intentionally directed so all of our mass lighting for example in this parking lot are what they call night sky qualified there's zero light leaking from where we're directing it and that's broadly applied across the airport so great still happy to take it back of course but I think I think I would imagine we're pretty sensitive okay great anything else for mr. Miller mr. chair thank you I'm just going to concur with what you've heard here a lot today you heard it earlier with another plan as far as structure parking this is something that we and the city has to consider because we're gonna run out of land simply put you know there's a finite amount of that and we've got to start thinking growing up and I appreciate your thoughts as far as down the road doing it and I hope to see it next time you come back through here sir appreciate you all righty do we have any further discussion is there anyone from the public who would like to comment today and we're just trying to move as efficiently as we can because of our time constraint all right any Commissioner comment or motions and again this would be a motion of whether or not it is in compliance this plan as it is drafted in compliance with the conference plan mr. Mickler do you I can make a motion that the and and I might ask if the motion can be worded that the the well I guess my motion would be that the plan is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan because the 800 space parking lot does not meet either the environmental goals or the design standards for the city of Lexington all right there was a motion mr. for an interest in getting to a vote I'll second that motion you you second it Thank You mr. Owens all right any discussion on that motion if not this is you're voting to state that this is not in compliance with our comprehensive plan mr. yes mr. Wilson in order to do that this is senator on a ministerial approach I assume mr. Jones is that correct well I mean you can make the motion say that but it's a practical matter it's just gonna stay what you think it's not gonna cause any result one way or the other whether you say it's in compliance or not they don't have to comply with our ordinance so if you want to say that you can but you I mean it's up you know it's up to you all okay okay all righty we are ready to vote on that motion oh well hold on that this is correct that's right okay so that motion carries by one thank you thank you bluegrass Airport mr. crumb all right thank you all Daniel crumb planning staff again once again try to be brief in the interest of time this is request on the exact opposite end of the county for Deer Haven Park so this is out Deer Haven Lane and I'll give you a location map in just a second this is to construct a new park so here we have the subject property it's a little over 20 acres in size here it's out in expansion area to a polo club Boulevard is running to the west here and then we have two roadways that that have a sort of interesting relationship with this property in that they both terminate in cul-de-sacs here and here and so that is both Deer Haven Lane as well as Walnut Grove Lane so they are not actually connected so they they basically terminate in cul-de-sacs it's part of the the larger history of development of the parcel but otherwise the parcel is largely undeveloped it has the the turnabouts there for the parking but is currently used mainly as sort of dirt bike and bike trails but this request would sort of bring it into the fold and to kind of create it as a true neighborhood park for the surrounding developments from a zoning perspective those orange and yellow colors you see there are expansion area residential zoning so we have a subdivision to the south is being sort of built out in real time with planned development anticipated to the north as well as once again Walnut Grove Lane and Deer Haven serving kind of as the the eastern boundary with established kind of larger lots residential uses zooming in a little bit closer you get a better idea of kind of how these parcels are laid out and once again you say that these roadways continue up they both circle with their respective turnarounds cul-de-sacs and then there is a area in between that is used by the the residences here but it is blocked off to through movement and traffic that is not proposed to change this request this is really about developing the rest of the park and kind of adding additional facilities here is how that looks at today so this is the view from Walnut Grove so once again barrier that serves the areas that are the existing adjoining residential uses park facilities located on the right this is the view from the inside once again largely treed and so the actual trails are located behind the tree line they are seeking to kind of bring this up and add additional amenities within these spaces that we'll get into momentarily and here's momentarily so it's a two-phase approach the first phase involves the construction of pickleball courts we have a basketball basketball goals or a basketball court that would be expanded in the future we have a shelter and a playground located here with a internal sidewalk system trail system that connects through one thing that I didn't mention earlier is the Brighton rail trail runs through the site here that provides connection from Walnut Grove all the way out to Polo Club and its connection with the larger trail system so it'll be interfacing with that the are so they also are proposing connections in both directions once the kind of development fills out to both of the adjoining neighborhoods so this will interplay into both the north and the south's trails the larger regional trail system as well as having sort of the the limited vehicular connection present here and here they are proposing this once again over two phases that second phase is going to add essentially more of the of what was present in phase one so expanding both of the courts adding additional restroom capacity but we're otherwise kind of keeping this within the the scale you see here it's important to note that this this plan is impacted by not only the comprehensive plan but the expansion area master plan as well as our parks master plan both the expansion area master plan from 96 and the parks master plan highlight that this is an area in need of actual park service this was area 2a was intended to have a actual functioning park to serve these neighborhoods and so this is kind of the first step to bring bringing that fully online that's the location of the property as it relates so from a land use perspective within our expansion areas it's exactly in line with what we were looking for once again providing for future connectivity to our residential neighborhoods being built out from that time goals and objectives wise it kind of speaks for itself we improve our communities when we have walkable accessible parks and recreation opportunities once again this is giving extra recreational opportunities in an area that is largely bereft of really walkable or connected options we find that it's an agreement with a number of policies of the comprehensive plan talking about providing these green space this open space that is usable from about the neighborhood and a community perspective we find that it's agreement with the comprehensive plan with the expansion area master plan as well as the parks and recreation master plan we do not have any additional comments or additional recommendations with this item just that you all recommend that it is in keeping with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan but we've got parks and recreation staff here present they could probably explain the details in a little bit more eloquently but otherwise I'd be happy to take any questions you have of staff thank you Daniel as usual I'm just curious this is zoned for residential use right so this is going back yeah this is this is zoned for its AR so that's agricultural okay and does do do parks does parks do parks and recreation already own this property yes excellent I think it's a great idea great good job all right yes mr. Nicole how many parking places are gonna be available for the public to access this part I think parks may have to weigh in on that so they showed the areas I'm not sure how many actual vehicular spaces though I believe the plan currently allows 12 parking spaces normal parking spaces plus two ADA spaces which would be van accessible to meet code that's in the southern lot the Deerhaven Lane lot so it's an expansion of the existing cul-de-sac by placing parking spaces around it okay so outside of the existing footprint it's it's hard to see in this but but right so this darker shade that you see here that's the parking spaces and and so in phase one we're doing this end and phase two we do this end so it makes sense it makes sense it's just it makes sense I understand the intent I understand what you're trying to do I was just considering making it more accessible to those that would have to drive to the park that's a relevant point we considered expanding it more but we actually we got the counter argument from from local residents that didn't want to see additional traffic plus we heard concerns that Deerhaven Lane itself is a traffic concern that it is a narrower rural road and so by encouraging more traffic along that road there were there were concerns from residents that it would be too much volume okay that that makes sense so I'm since you haven't heard a concern from anyone other than the residents in the area that are have the most easy access to this park either by walking her through this wonderful trail I would just like to ask you all to consider to allowing more parking whether it's just fairground style parking that is fully acceptable and fine but I think it's important to make an investment of a beautiful park like this accessible to all in our community not just those that have the benefit of being closely located to it I understand that traffic is always a concern but when we're putting in public facilities I think it's important to make it available to a broader group of our citizens rather than just those that are in the local vicinity understood so I don't sit on yet I noticed in phase one you will have water there you have a shelter it's been my observation in the city parks when you got a shelter you got picnics you got little kids you got diaper changes you got all kinds of things like that and I'm wondering there's if there's a possibility to moving the restroom facilities up into phase one as opposed to leaving them for phase two unfortunately if we did that we would lose the vast majority of the amenities that we have proposed for phase one simply due to the cost of the restroom facility itself and the infrastructure to to make that happen all right I'll follow that up by adding that we will have Porter potty which is which is something we are doing in most of our parks where we where we can't place a restroom facility is having a Porter potty with a screen on a pad with a screen there's still not great for diaper changes I know all right do we have any further questions for our friends from parks and rec all right do we have any one from the public who would like to comment on this mr. Murphy I know you've been sitting back there for a reason well I'm here on behalf of North 40 properties which is the excuse me developer of most all the property around it I happen to see this on the agenda yesterday so I told my client they asked me to come down to see what was going on and we we welcome having the park here there's a there's a great demand for it in the neighborhood right now great okay that's great if do we have any other Commissioner comment or question if not we can entertain a motion mr. Mickler hope you want it I move that this park proposal is in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the reasons given Thank You mr. Mickler second from Commissioner worth do we have any discussion seeing none that can go to a vote and I believe let's see other than anything okay so that carries with one abstention mr. Wilson and one no for mr. nickel but it does carry thank you if that is the last time on our agenda mr. Duncan do we have anything that's it mr. chair thank you we'll remind you that the Planning Commission will have a Planning Commission work session on Thursday May 15th we'll be back in the Phoenix building on the third floor at 130 thank you thank you Jim without objection we are adjourned