# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - October 9, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · October 9, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6586 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6586?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-10-09 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 15, 2026 - **Length**: 11,069 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 met on October 9, 2025, at 1:31 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Zach Davis presiding. The Commission worked through 8 agenda items, taking a total of 8 votes during the session. No public comments were heard during the meeting. The Commission approved several items, including the September 11, 2025 meeting minutes, Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit, the Boonesboro Manor final subdivision plan, waivers for the Patchen Wilkes development plan, and the Gainsway Mall Shopping Center development plan with waivers. The Commission also voted to cancel the October 16, 2025 work session. Two items — the Phelps Property development plan and the Cox Property development plan — were postponed rather than acted upon. ## Attendance The following members were present at the October 9, 2025 Commission meeting: - Zach Davis - Ivy Barksdale - Bruce Nicol - Judy Worth - Larry Forester - Robin Michler - Johnathon Davis - Frank Penn - Molly Davis **Absent:** Owens, Wilson No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions All eight items brought to a vote at the October 9, 2025 Commission meeting passed unanimously (9–0). All nine members — Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Bruce Nicol, Judy Worth, Larry Forester, Robin Michler, Johnathon Davis, Frank Penn, and Molly Davis — voted in favor of every motion. - **September 11, 2025 Minutes** — Moved by Judy Worth, seconded by Jonathan Davis. The minutes were approved unanimously. [timestamp: 0:02] - **Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit** — Moved by Frank Penn, seconded by Judy Worth. Approved unanimously. [timestamp: 3:01] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00042 — Phelps Property Development Plan** — Moved by Larry Forester, seconded by Judy Worth. The item was unanimously postponed to November 13, 2025. [timestamp: 4:03] - **PLN-MJSUB-25-00004 — Cox Property Development Plan** — Moved by Robin Michler, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. The item was unanimously postponed to November 13, 2025. [timestamp: 5:05] - **PLN-FRP-25-00014 — Boonesboro Manor Final Subdivision Plan** — Moved by Judy Worth, seconded by Larry Forester. Approved unanimously with 11 conditions, including a finding that access easements as sole access was appropriate. [timestamp: 19:24] - **PLN-WAV-25-00002 — Patchen Wilkes Development Plan Waivers** — Moved by Larry Forester, seconded by Judy Worth. Approved unanimously as amended to include a reference to a future four-way intersection. [timestamp: 1:04:21] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00052 — Gainsway Mall Shopping Center Development Plan with Waivers** — Moved by Robin Michler, seconded by Frank Penn. Approved unanimously with conditions and reasons provided by staff. [timestamp: 1:19:36] - **Cancellation of October 16, 2025 Work Session** — Moved by Larry Forester, seconded by Jonathan Davis. Approved unanimously. [timestamp: 1:22:08] ## Approval of September 11, 2025 Minutes [timestamp: 02:00] The Commission took up the approval of the minutes from its September 11, 2025 meeting. Key speakers on this item were **Judy Worth** and **Jonathan Davis**. The Commission discussed the minutes and moved forward with their approval. The minutes were **approved**. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 03:01] The Commission took up Agenda Item IV, a discussion of performance bonds and letters of credit. Key speakers on this item were Frank Penn and Judy Worth. The Commission considered the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. No specific concerns, amendments, or notable debate are reflected in the available record for this item. The Commission approved the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. ## Postponement of Phelps Property Development Plan [timestamp: 04:03] The Commission took up agenda item V.a, concerning the postponement of the Phelps Property development plan. Key speakers on this item were Larry Forester and Judy Worth. The Commission discussed moving the Phelps Property development plan to a later meeting date rather than proceeding with it at the October 9, 2025 session. No additional detail on the specific reasons for the postponement or any concerns raised during the discussion are available in the meeting record. The Commission approved the postponement, rescheduling consideration of the Phelps Property development plan to **November 13, 2025**. ## Postponement of Cox Property development plan [timestamp: 05:05] The Commission took up agenda item V.b, concerning the postponement of the Cox Property development plan. Key speakers on this item were Robin Michler and Ivy Barksdale. The Commission discussed moving the Cox Property development plan to a later meeting date, ultimately approving the postponement to **November 13, 2025**. No additional details regarding the specific reasons for the postponement, any concerns raised, or the substance of the underlying development plan are available from the meeting record for this item. ## Approval of Boonesboro Manor Final Subdivision Plan **Agenda Item IV.1.a** [timestamp: 19:24] The Commission took up the final subdivision plan for Boonesboro Manor, with key speakers Judy Worth and Larry Forester participating in the discussion. The Commission reviewed and ultimately approved the final subdivision plan for Boonesboro Manor. The approval was granted with conditions, though the specific conditions attached to the approval are not detailed in the available record. The outcome of the item was approval. > *Note: Additional details regarding the substance of the presentation, specific concerns raised during debate, and the precise conditions attached to the approval are not available in the source data for this agenda item.* ## Approval of Waivers for Patchen Wilkes Development Plan [timestamp: 1:04:21] The Commission took up agenda item IV.3.b, the approval of waivers for the Patchen Wilkes development plan. Key speakers during this discussion included Larry Forester and Judy Worth. The item was brought forward as a discussion matter, with commissioners reviewing the proposed waivers associated with the Patchen Wilkes development plan. During the course of the discussion, an amendment to the rationale accompanying the waivers was raised and considered by the Commission. The Commission ultimately approved the waivers for the Patchen Wilkes development plan, incorporating the amendment to the rationale as part of the final action. *Note: The available record for this agenda item identifies the speakers and outcome but does not include a detailed breakdown of the specific waivers requested, the substance of individual arguments made, or the precise nature of the rationale amendment. Readers seeking the full discussion are encouraged to consult the meeting transcript or recording beginning at timestamp 1:04:21.* ## Approval of Gainsway Mall Shopping Center Development Plan with Waivers **Agenda Item IV.3.c** [timestamp: 1:19:36] The Commission took up the development plan for Gainsway Mall Shopping Center, including associated waivers and conditions. Key speakers on this item were **Robin Michler** and **Frank Penn**. The Commission discussed and ultimately approved the development plan for Gainsway Mall Shopping Center with waivers and conditions. *Note: Detailed information about the specific waivers requested, conditions attached to the approval, arguments presented, and any concerns raised during discussion is not available in the source data for this item.* ## Cancellation of October 16, 2025 Work Session [timestamp: 1:22:08] The Commission took up the question of whether to cancel its upcoming work session scheduled for October 16, 2025. Key speakers on this item were Larry Forester and Jonathan Davis. Following discussion, the Commission approved the cancellation of the October 16, 2025 work session. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of the September 11, 2025 minutes - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-MJDP-25-00042** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Phelps Property development plan - **PLN-MJSUB-25-00004** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Cox Property development plan - **PLN-FRP-25-00014** — passed (9-0): Approval of Boonesboro Manor final subdivision plan - **PLN-WAV-25-00002** — passed (9-0): Approval of waivers for Patchen Wilkes development plan - **PLN-MJDP-25-00052** — passed (9-0): Approval of Gainsway Mall Shopping Center development plan with waivers - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Cancellation of October 16, 2025 work session --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Planning Commission. Our first item on the agenda today is the approval of the September 11th minutes. Are there any revisions? They were very short. I did have one revision I emailed Paula. Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the September 11th 2025 minutes. Thank you, Commissioner Worth. A second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Thank you. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that motion to approve the minutes to a vote. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Nichol. That is a unanimous vote. Thank you very much. We'll go out of order slightly and take care of the performance bonds and letters of credit. We have a memorandum in our packet dated October 9th from Mr. Fairchild. Is there any discussion or the floor is open for a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the recent call of bonds as presented by staff on our agenda. Thank you, Mr. Penn. We have a second from Commissioner Worth. Thank you. Any discussion? We will take that to a vote, please. That also carries unanimously. Thank you. Now we will move to postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on behalf of the developer on page 3, item 3A, PLN image ADP 2542 Phelps property, 4075 Old Richmond Road. We request a one-month postponement. We're still awaiting a word from the state about the right of way. Thank you. Thank you, Dick. That would take us to November 6th. Is that correct? No. 13th. 13th. Excuse me. 13th. All right. Do we have any questions for Mr. Murphy or is there any discussion? If not, the floor is open for a motion to November 13th. Somebody go for it. Okay. Thank you. Motion for a postponement of PLN MJD 25-42 Phelps property for one month as requested by applicant. All right. Thank you, Mr. Jonathan Davis. Second from Mr. Forrester. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take that to a vote, please. Okay. And that carries unanimously. Thank you, Dick. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Rick Nonnery with EA Partners. On page 2, item 2A, PLN MJSUB 25-4 Cox property. We're requesting a one-month postponement to work on items. Thank you, sir. That was also to November 13th. Do we have any questions from the Planning Commission? Yes, sir, Mr. Pitt or Mr. Mickler. I move to postpone PLN MJSUB 25-4 Cox property to November 13th. Thank you, Commissioner Mickler. Second from Commissioner Barksdale. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take that to a vote, please. All right. Thank you, Mr. Nonnery. That carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Do we have any postponements from staff? No. All right. Then I believe that takes us to page 2, item 1, Boonesboro Manor. Chris? Good afternoon. Chris Chaney, Planning Staff. First plan, final subdivision, PLN FRP 2514 Boonesboro Manor Interstate Park Property, IBC 8th and South LLC. The purpose of this plan is to create 15 lots and a finding that access to lots provided solely by an access easement has been requested. This plan previously proposed 16 lots. After the initial submittal, they have reconfigured just a little bit and reduced the number of lots by one. Tract 1B formerly was two lots. They've made that into one. And then they've adjusted the lot line between tract 1L and 1K. They've reconfigured it a little bit, and then that also affected the size of lot, or tract 1J. And then the other part of the purpose of this, they're proposing Hattrick Way as an access easement, and then Doe Run Trail, and that's the finding that we're going to talk about. From the subdivision committee, there's no change in the staff report. Subdivision committee recommended approval. There are 11 conditions, engineering traffic, engineering landscaping, addressing urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality, bike ped, green space, and then the addition of utility and street light easements as required by the utility companies and the urban county traffic engineer. And then documentation of division of water qualities approval of the capacity assurance program requirements prior to plan certification. And then finally, the last condition is provided that the planning commission finds an access easement as sole frontage for a lot is appropriate. Let's see. So I'm going to zoom in on Hattrick. I think we've just got the zoom in on Hattrick. So the findings are for sole access off of Doe Run Trail for, I believe it's tract 3B. And then sole access for tract 1E and tract 1D off of Hattrick Way. They have frontage off of Athens Boonesboro, but they don't have access. So they do need access across this additional parcel. As far as the findings go, you should have a report in your packet. Under article 68M of the land subdivision regulations, it requires that the planning commission make a finding to approve lots which are proposed to have their sole access provided via an access easement rather than via a public or private street. The regulations further state that access easements should be used rarely. So the applicant is developing this site with multiple lots and streets located at the southwest corner. This is at Athens Boonesboro at plan north and then I-75 to the right. And then this is competition drive that comes directly off Athens Boonesboro. Doe Run Trail goes into the soccer complex, which is to the plan south. So we've seen a few development plans associated with this development. They're coming in with their final record plat. Let's see. So the applicant is offering an access easement to serve as the sole access for tracts 1E and D from Hattrick Way and for tract 3B of Doe Run Trail. They indicate that both Hattrick Way and Doe Run Trail have been designed and constructed in compliance with LFUCG land subdivision regulations and construction manuals. And then Hattrick Way terminates into the parking lot of tract 1D, which is currently developed as I believe it's a Starbucks. And so there's an existing parking lot there, which is being used. The current lot configuration doesn't provide space for an approved termination of a public street. And so instead of requesting a waiver for the termination of the public street, they're requesting a finding for an access easement. And then in regards to Doe Run Trail, due to the nature of the development of the soccer facility, the applicant indicates that a gate is necessary, which negates Doe Run Trail from being designated as a private or a public street. So there's a gate after you leave the public portion of the street when it goes on to the private portion of Doe Run Trail. Findings for the appropriateness of access easement to sole access for the area development. Number one, oh, I'm sorry. Let me back up. Staff does recommend that the planning commission make a finding that an access easement is appropriate and is consistent with public health safety, with the public health and safety intent of the land subdivision regulations and will not negatively impact public health and safety for the general public. Number one, allowing for the use of an access easement as sole vehicular access to this development is consistent with the intent of the land subdivision regulations and will not negatively impact public health and safety. The Hattrick Way roadway has been constructed to LFUCG construction standards with the exception of an appropriate termination of the public street. And the adjacent parcels are currently served by an access easement over this parcel. The applicant is proposing that traffic can turn around in the constructed parking lot on track 1D and previously provided auto turn exhibits indicating most vehicles can turn around within track 1D. Similarly, Doe Run Trail terminates in a large parking lot adjacent to the soccer complex, which does allow for large vehicles to turn around. This recommendation is made subject to the following additional condition that they do denote maintenance of access easements on the final record plat. And with that, I'll turn it over to you. All right. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions on this particular? Yes, sir, Mr. Penn. Chris, I guess I've got, well, let's start with one. So do we have to have approval from the people that own the property where this traffic is going to turn around? In other words, if you're going to turn around on private property, do you have to have a letter of approval? You're taking an access easement and turning it around on private property. Correct. I believe it's private property. Yeah. All of the lots are private, and I believe there's a, and the applicant may be able to speak more to this, I believe there's reciprocal access. I'll ask the applicant. It's probably a better place to ask that. Okay, I'll wait and ask the applicant. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Chris at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Chris. Applicant? Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Blaine. I'm with Palmer Engineering here on behalf of the developer and owner of the parcel that we're discussing. As Chris stated, we are requesting a finding for some of the lots to be accessed solely off of an access easement. We have some extenuating circumstances on this site and what the development that they're hoping to do that won't allow for us to meet all the requirements of having public streets, public right of way. I know some of you all, we had seen in subdivision committee maybe three or four months ago, where we did have a request for a waiver on some of those areas. We've worked with staff, talked to traffic engineering, have some correspondence also with fire. And really, based on the feedback we got from them, that having these serviced by an access easement seemed like the preferable manner. Because A, as Chris mentioned, there's a gate that's proposed at the end of Doe Run Trail. I did want to clarify that it's after any access that's shown on the development plan to any of those lots. So that the gate would be after the access that's all shown on the final development plan, that proposed location. And any modification of that gate location would have to go back through the development plan process, is my understanding. And then also the main problem on Hattrick Way was just the availability of a public turnaround. So what we're proposing is that both the southern portion of Doe Run Trail and all of Hattrick Way remain completely private and are accessed to those lots by an access easement. I guess I'd be, if there's any questions or clarifications, I'd be glad to try to answer those. Mr. Pinn. So the maintenance of the access easement will be taken care of by the people that own the property? Yes, so there is essentially a, not an HOA, but an ownership group that there are several areas that are going to be maintained by that larger development group. And so both of these are included in that reciprocal agreement areas. The stream areas and the detention basins, there's a regional detention system, so that's also all included in that same maintenance agreement. And that maintenance agreement will follow the deeds? Yes, yes. Thank you. Okay. Currently right now, even the lots that are being developed are all owned by the same company. Obviously in the future at some point we have set it up so that those lots are transferred. That responsibility will be transferred with them. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you, Stephanie. Thank you. Do we have any commissioner comment? Or I'm sorry, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this plan today? Seeing none, do we have any final commissioner comment or question? The floor is open for a motion. Thank you, Chair. I have a question. At one of our committee meetings, we had a discussion about a development that I think was in the same vicinity. And I'm sorry, I'm just drawing a blank on it. It was maybe three weeks ago. Is this in conflict with that? Is this adjacent to that? Do you all recall? Yes, that was Old Richland Road at Athens. That's the only one I'm familiar with that's close by. Across the interstate. Across the street. So it's not, okay. There was a development plan, actually two, that the planning commission maybe didn't see. And now that I'm remembering, it was at tech committee. So there are, Stephanie's office is also bringing in development plans for each individual lot. So we may have discussed one of those at a committee meeting. Is that possible? I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank. But the fact that it was near the I-75 interchange, near the soccer complex. I think it's on the other side. Okay, thank you. Yeah, Ms. Davis, you might be thinking of the Basler property, which would be- Yes, thank you. The Basler property is, okay. And I know this is a final plan, so it's not as though we're going to go back. But it was just for context I was interested. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any discussion or questions? If not, the floor is open for approving this amendment with the access easement in the form of a final subdivision plan. Are we doing it? It's work. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNRP 2514 Boonesboro Manor with the attached 11 conditions, including the 11th, with the finding that the access easement to Sol Furnish is appropriate. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Wirth. Second from Commissioner Forrester, thank you. Any discussion? If not, we will go ahead and take a vote on that. All right. So that carries unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is to page 5, item B, PLN MJDP 2549. Okay. So this plan, PLN MJDP 2549 Patchin' Wilks Unit 2, Lot A, the development plan was approved at the tech committee on August 27th. Under our new House Bill 443 procedure, this went before the technical review committee and was reviewed and approved at that time. Since then, the applicants have requested two waivers to that plan, and I'm going to go quickly over the plan, and then we'll talk about the waiver requests. So this is, for this plan, it's a final development plan for Lot 8, which includes the Kroger and the fueling station. The other lots remain a preliminary subdivision plan on this submittal. So the out lots along Winchester Road and I believe it's Lot 9, that front thunder stick are not part of the final development plan for this. Those will come back later. So we're looking specifically at the Kroger for the waivers. So this plan has a 130,000 square foot Kroger with associated parking and a fueling center. I believe there's also a Wine and Spirits, and then I believe that's an online fulfillment, like a pickup area, and then a pharmacy drive-through as well here. So Charleston comes off of Winchester Road, and there are two entrances. There's an access easement that serves the out lots and the fueling station, and there's a northern entrance that directly serves the front of the Kroger and the parking lot. So the waiver request should have a report in your packet. Under Article 21-9 of the zoning ordinance, these waivers are allowable, and then under 21-9D, the findings that are necessary for the granting of the waiver. You may approve the waivers of standards upon finding that. Number one, the waiver will not compromise public health, safety, and welfare. Number two, the extent of the waiver of the regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant. And number three, either A, the applicant has incorporated other design measures that exceed the minimums of the zone and compensate for noncompliance with the requirements to be waived, the net beneficial effect, or B, strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. And then under 21-9E, you are authorized to approve or add additional conditions to any approval that you see fit. So in regarding the proposed final development plan for a proposed grocery store and fueling station, MJDP 2549, the applicant requests a waiver to Article 16-12B of the zoning ordinance, which states where bicycle parking is provided externally, such parking shall be located adjacent to the building and within 20 feet of a building main entrance. Bicycle parking shall be located so the bicycles do not impede the pedestrian through movement when parked. And this is important as a cyclist, and I've been a utilitarian cyclist at times. When you're going to go to the grocery store and you're going to buy your groceries and take them home on your bike, you want your bike close to the entrance. It's like all of us, when we drive, we want to be close to the entrance in our cars. And so this regulation is intended to prevent bicycle parking from just being relegated to the places that aren't appropriate, places that may not be useful to someone who's actually using a bicycle to go to the grocery store or to shop or whatever. And so that regulation is intended to make the parking useful and actually beneficial to the development. It also does say that located so that the bicycles do not impede the pedestrian through movement when parked. And that's part of this request. I'm going to go on through the summary, just kind of wanted to throw that out at the beginning. The second waiver request is of article 16-15B, which states proposed commercial entrances shall conform to LFUCG standard drawing 307-2 and must meet all fire code or LFUCG division of fire standards. Driveway width, apron flare, and curb radius must meet all fire code or LFUCG division of fire standards. So back to the first request, the applicant indicates that in order to meet the requirements of article 16-12B of the zoning ordinance, they would need to provide over 1,000 square feet of bicycle parking. So the required number for the amount of vehicular parking that they have is 50 spaces. And if you take the standard bicycle parking space that's outlined in our regulations, what dimensionally is required for that and group those together, it's roughly 1,000 square feet. And so the requirement with the amount of parking that they have would be for 50 bike parking spaces within 20 feet of the entrance, of the main entrance of the building. And on this proposed structure, the main entrances are in this location and this location. And to provide 1,000 square feet of bicycle parking there would be problematic. And also would impede pedestrian access, which the requirement is that the bicycle parking does not impede pedestrian access. So the applicant is proposing to spread out the bicycle parking. And they're actually proposing to add four additional spaces to the 50 that are required, but then spread it out. So they're showing there's a common public amenity near the fueling station. And they're proposing on its, I can't see it. I think it's 10 or 12 here. I'll have to do my math. 20 spaces along the front of the building here. And then I believe 12 in this location and 10 in this location. Sorry, it's hard to read with the color actually. So they're proposing a total of 54 spread out in four locations. But they will meet the minimum required number of spaces, just not, they're proposing not to have them all in one place. And then as far as the second request, the applicant is requesting that it be permitted to install an at-grade commercial entrance that is 40 feet wide to provide for an inbound lane and left and right outbound turn lanes. And that does not conform with LFUCG standard drawing 307-2. The standard drawing limits commercial entrances to 30 feet in width and requires a concrete entrance apron transition to the intersecting street. And they're wanting an at-grade entrance. The applicant cites a need for left and right egress turn lanes in conjunction with the ingress lane as well as a greater turn radius for delivery vehicles in order to ensure proper lane positioning for all turning movements. And then to mitigate the potential adverse effects to pedestrian safety, the applicant is proposing to install a raised pedestrian crossing near the subject entrance, which meets requirements of Article 16-6A3C of the zoning ordinance. So on the plan, it's this northern entrance. They're proposing a single ingress lane and then a left turn lane and a right turn lane onto Charleston Drive. And then they're proposing a raised pedestrian crossing in this location to connect the fuel station through to kind of the main part of the development. Regarding the first requested waiver, staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of Article 16-12B of the zoning ordinance for the following reasons. Number one, the waiver will not compromise public health, safety, and welfare as adequate bicycle parking will be provided within reasonable distances of the entrances to the structure. And number two, the extent of the waiver of this particular regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant, as meeting the requirements would create unnecessary clutter and obstruction near the main entrances to the grocery store. And number three, B, a strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. For the second waiver request, we're also recommending approval of waiver of Article 16-15B of the zoning ordinance for the following reasons. Number one, this waiver request does not compromise public health, safety, and welfare and supports the intent of Article 16-15B by providing adequate space for the normal traffic expected at this location. And number two, the extent of the waiver of this particular regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant, as constructing a narrower entrance would not allow for the normal turning movements of delivery vehicles. And three, a strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. These recommendations are made subject to the following additional requirements. If a waiver of Article 16-12B is granted, the applicant must include four additional bicycle parking spaces with no less than 50% located proximate to entrances and include all required bicycle parking spaces to the approval of the Bicycle Pedestrian Planner and B. If a waiver of Article 16-15B is granted, the applicant must install a raised pedestrian crossing to the approval of the Bicycle Pedestrian Planner and the Division of Traffic Engineering. Okay, thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for Chris at this time? Mr. Penn? Yeah, I don't understand why you're parking bicycles down there close to the gas pumps. The applicant can speak to that a little more, I think. But I think that was a location that was proposed. I think they indicate that they hope in the future that may be a bus stop near that common amenity. It's kind of between the, so the fueling station's here. It's kind of in this kind of open space area between the entrance and the fueling station. I'll talk to that. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Mickler, did you have anything? Yeah, I was wondering if either you could speak a little more or if we could hear from traffic on the point in your recommendation where you say the narrower entrance would not allow for the normal turning movements of delivery vehicles. I know that I live four houses up from the Kroger on Marquee Avenue. And I can't imagine, that definitely has a concrete apron. And I can't imagine that that entrance for those semis is wider than the 35 feet or whatever. So I was, I'm not sure how that doesn't allow for delivery movement. But maybe you could speak to that or we can hear from David as well. They did also provide an auto turn. Is it in? Okay. Showing the turning movements that showed it being a tight fit getting in. And I think it showed the delivery vehicles crossing into the left turn lane, the egress turn lane. And I think that was a little bit of a concern. All righty. That might be a better question for the applicant. The egress turn lane is not a requirement. Is that correct? I don't believe so. But I think they would say no. So the, I mean if I'm understanding this correctly, the reason there's not enough room is because when you add that extra turn lane, you then lose enough room, is that right? Or maybe, David, you could. So, yeah, if you, David's really at your traffic engineering. So, yeah, if you looked at the standard drawings for a commercial property like this, there's really two designations. Both were, both limited to 30 foot, the neck length of 30 foot. And then there's commercial that is 30 feet wide. And then it's got a particular radius. And then there's commercial loading. So like something like this where there would be loading and unloading of goods. It increases the radius but keeps that neck width. And then industrial allows you up to 40 feet in width. So basically they're asking for that, an industrial entrance effectively. But it's splitting it into three lanes like you mentioned. So, which is not atypical in a lot of instances. Now, obviously what you're talking about in the Kroger on Euclid is this, that two lane width. So it's more close to what we've seen, or excuse me, what's shown in the standard drawing. But I guess they're wanting some relief in that egress so that it doesn't, like you said, dip over into the additional lane that's allowing for egress. But you're right. It's not required to have two separate lanes. It's more of an operational preference for the Kroger. So I guess the reasoning really isn't that they couldn't turn. It's more of like in order to add the turn lane they need this sort of wider width. And they could probably answer to that more. But, yes, that would make sense. You're talking about 30 feet and then with three lanes now you're at 10. Then trying to get a truck in might be a little. Assuming there will always be some vehicles there, which is not necessarily the case. And then I guess the second part of that question was like where we have that concrete apron, which allows more sidewalk continuity. I mean, I guess maybe. I know it's easier for trucks to move through without it. But isn't that the point of the sidewalk apron, I guess? Yes. Yeah, that's part of the issue. And one of the things we discussed was just that the future of the property to the west is likely to be a residential entrance. And so this would probably act more functionally as a full four-legged intersection. And I think that's what we, like Vaughn and I discussed, is being okay with this particular entrance probably being at grade. But the rest, at least off the access easement, we discussed that those all should have entrance aprons because they're formal driveways. Like I said, once there's another approach on the west side, which we presume there will be, it will be a pseudo street in that respect because it's going to meet at a four-way. So that was our internal reasoning as far as, in this particular instance, allowing it. Yeah. Thank you for those clarifications. Don't leave yet. Or David never gets away with it. That's all right. Just one. Just one. I've got two questions, but only one for him. We received a letter from a Mary Beth McCormick. Okay. And she referenced a proposed traffic study for the area out there, and said she's not been able to get any answers to whether that study's been performed. Can you respond to that question? You're talking about Winchester Road? I think there's one in- State? The process that the state's doing, but I don't think it's getting started until January. Okay. And there was somebody I'd been coordinating with. I don't think it was her. I think it was someone else maybe. But, yeah, they're selecting the consultant, and then in January they'll start. It'll be a corridor study similar to, like, imagine Nicholsville and imagine-not imagine, but- She's asking about traffic. For Winchester Road or for the development itself? Winchester Road. So, yes, yeah. That's what a traffic-it'll be-it'll include all elements, planning elements and traffic elements for Winchester Road from basically Midland all the way probably to Man o' War. It's a comprehensive study that the MPO and state will lead. But that doesn't get kicked off until January. So it's not particularly referencing this, but obviously that will be a part of it because it'll encompass the whole corridor. Okay. For her, she said she contacted the state as well and didn't get an answer. So in case she's listening to this, they're still selecting someone to do the work, and it will be kicked off in January. Is that correct? Correct, yes. And I sent that information to someone else, but I think it was one of the representatives of the townhomes there. So she may not have-it may be a different area. But I don't think I ever got a question in that regard. But, anyway, yes, to your point. And so this is maybe a shared question, and, again, this may be really more to respond to the letter. The lady mentioned the flooding over there yesterday, and, you know, a lot of places got flooded that don't normally get flooded. So she was referring to repeated flooding, not just yesterday. I'm assuming that the stormwater quality work that gets done after this point will be addressing that issue, or- Anybody want to tackle that question so we can respond to this lady? I don't know that one, but do you have- Vaughn, are you-is this your territory? I don't know. Is somebody going to be dealing with that? Vaughn Adkins, engineering. As far as preexisting conditions and flooding, I'm not in the water quality stormwater management section, so I don't know what they have planned. But anything that comes in new development-wise, we'll look at the whole area, and every engineer will have to submit a study to make sure that they're addressing any preexisting conditions and manage their own onsite stormwater management. Okay. So you've responded to her question. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Chris, you pointed out where the main entrances are, I guess, for the front of the Kroger, and there are 20 spaces pretty close to the left, and then another 10 by the Wine and Spirits. The 12-space bike rack at the back, I assume, might be for employees to park there? I believe that's what the applicant indicated. And, Mr. Kaley, I'd ask him for some clarification on the entrances, and there is an entrance behind the Wine and Spirits here. Okay. And then I believe there's an entrance on the front of the Wine and Spirits. I guess if there were a sidewalk for the employees to get from the bike spaces to the entrance, it would make more sense to me rather than having employees come in through the Wine and Spirits shop? Yeah, I believe there is. There's a sidewalk here that kind of goes around this little curve, and then it actually goes along the back of the building and lines up with that entrance. Okay. Like Mr. Penn, it seems like I kind of have doubts about the attractiveness of a common open space being near a fueling station and being able to be called a common amenity, but it makes more sense if there might be a bus stop there to have bike parking. Then the other question about bike parking is in the document that you gave us, which references section 16-12, Bicycle Parking and Storage. It says, long-term bicycle parking facility, sorry, point number three, long-term bicycle parking facilities shall be constructed with at least one of the following features. And these mention bicycle lockers or a secured and dedicated bicycle parking area. Is the reason that there's not one of these is because these are not seen as long term bicycle parking facilities? It's the third page in the handout in the front where it's marked out in purple. I believe that's saying that if there are long term bicycle parking facilities provided they shall be constructed in this manner. So these are not considered long term bicycle parking facilities? I wouldn't think so, no. Okay. Thank you for your answers. Okay, do we have any other questions for Chris? If not, thank you Chris. And we will hear from Mr. Gross. Good afternoon, Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicant. A couple items here. So I've not seen the email that you were referring to, Ms. Worth, but I can answer some items. So just so everyone knows, when we were here before, I had mentioned that we would continue talking with the neighbors. And so on August 26th, I was at the Eastland Neighborhood Association meeting, giving them an update on the project. And then we filed for this final development plan thereafter. And I sent notices to each of the homeowner associations who had been interacting with me. And so I sent them notice. I've met with Council Member Higgins-Horde. I'm giving her an update, and then I will be on October 22nd at the district wide meeting. So to the extent you guys have received information from neighbors, that has not come to me for us to address. And so a couple items, I believe you mentioned the traffic study. And so one item I know we are working with is, we have to get an accroachment agreement from the state to build our intersection at Winchester Road. And as part of that, we will be getting a traffic study for the state that are requiring it. So we're working on that right now. It sounds like she may have been referencing is for a system wide study that's separate from our project. But our project would be included within the analysis. So we will be getting a traffic study, and just so everyone, to educate everybody. When we get an accroachment agreement from the state, we also work with the city's traffic engineers. Because the state won't give us an accroachment that the city won't agree to. So we will be working with David's office on that particular issue. And on the storm water, we will need to, as Vaughn said, for our storm water management. We've got to not make things worse than they are. So with this development, we will not be sending water to adjoining properties. We have to capture it and do our own internal water. And what we, wrong button, there we go. And these here are the underground. So we'll be doing pervious parking papers to track our ground water at these locations here and here for the Kroger site. And so I believe that was one item that came up. And then for Mr. Penn and our gas station. And so what we have done, for those who, has anyone gone out to the Newtown Springs Kroger, Newtown Pike? There's a nice shelter there. And so what will be built here, I'm going to show you an example. This isn't exactly the design. The design we're looking at is going to have more of an equine barn theme, since this used to be patch of wilks. But it's not going to be bicycle parking next to a gas station. There's going to be a shelter such as this. It's concrete and steel. It's a nice amenity for those who've been to the Newtown Pike Kroger. And then currently, there's no bus service. But if such time bus service comes here, the idea would be this would also be able to serve as kind of a bus shelter, since they'd be able to put a stop at that location. And so our thought was, since this is essentially a picnic shelter that we think the neighborhood will use, it makes sense to have some bike parking at that location. And so that's why we proposed it at that location. So if we can go back now to the development plan. Okay, so just for everyone, we've got four entrances. This is an employee entrance. We already talked with staff, and we will move the bike parking closer to the building at this location. So that's a conversation we've already had with Chris, and we're going to work on that when we resubmit. Then we've got the Wine and Spirits, and there's more bike parking here. Then we've got a door, another door, and then we have additional bike parking with a canopy at this location. And just so everyone knows, kind of doing the math, our entries are 20 feet by 20 feet. And so that's 800 feet, and we need about 1,000 square feet of bike parking at these locations. And so the math didn't work. So our thought was, well, since we need 50 bike parks, and then we agreed to do 54, it would probably make more sense to spread them out at various entrances and various locations rather than putting them all 50 by the front door at these two locations. So that's our request on the bike parking. We'd have some here, and then we would have some on both sides, and all the entrances would be where the bike parking would be located. And once again, it's 50 bike parks. Realistically, we don't think they'll ever be full. I drive around, if you go to Euclid, which is a very bike, walk-friendly area. Even there, I'm not sure if you would see 50 bike parks at any one time. And so we think this is a good compromise that provide what the ordinance requires, we'll spread them out a little bit more so that there are different entrances, be able to be providing bike parking for different persons. The next item is on our next request, and then on this one, we agree with the staff's condition that we'll make sure at least 50% of our bike parks are within 20 feet of an entrance. And so that condition is agreeable to us. The next item we're asking for a waiver for is this entrance here. And so the standard entrance is 30 feet in Lexington. And so what we propose at this entrance is to have a right turnout and a left turnout and then a right turn in. Because when this development here gets built, we anticipate these entrances are going to align, as David had mentioned. So this will be kind of a four lane stop entrance area. And so part of the idea was, for those of you who don't enjoy traffic in Lexington or sitting in traffic, was if we provided a right turn out, all the cars, once this road, which you can't see, gets connected to Eastland, gets connected back here to the neighborhood off Executive Drive, is a lot of people will be coming to Kroger and then exiting, and then they can go right out. Without being stuck behind someone going left, they'll want to go to Winchester Road. Many accidents are caused by not only people playing on their telephones, but also frustrated drivers who get frustrated sitting in traffic waiting for their opportunity to turn. And so one item is, is this will reduce that frustration. The second thing is, is our truck. So we're going to have several large semi-trucks coming in through this entrance a day for deliveries. Kroger prefers to have truck entrances a little bit separated from our customer entrances. But this instance, because of topography, we have a retaining wall that's going to go along here and down here, their preference would have been for us to have an entrance here, but we couldn't make it work. And so we're going to have to have a shared entrance at this location, and I've got an auto turn that was submitted to Chris. What's that? I thought you said you didn't know, don't worry. Mm-hm. Yeah. And so this will show you, oh, is it wrong? It doesn't, no. No, I guess not. So this will show you that a large truck, if we had it two lanes, the semi-truck, when it were to turn into the entrance, would actually cross over into the other lane. And so we've all had that experience where we have to back up. Well, we don't necessarily want our customers backing up because I know I've actually almost backed into people trying to make way, room for trucks before on their roads in Lexington. And so that is what it would look like if we did not have the wider, and then here is. So with our proposal, they will greatly reduce the connections between the existing traffic leaving and the semi-trucks coming in. And so that is essentially why we're asking for that second item. And if we can go back to the development plan, please. No, sorry. Nope, wrong way. There we go, okay. And so that's the reason we're asking for this one. We're not discussing this one down here. It's just we wanted to make sure that this entrance includes the ability for the trucks and the customers to interact safely in one location. And then we have included a raised pedestrian at this location. That way traffic leaving the store will slow down and essentially would not have time to accelerate going into the sidewalk commercial entrance area. And so we have looked at the condition, and we're agreeable to the condition as proposed by staff regarding this waiver also. And ultimately, this plan is almost identical to the one you approved in July. The only difference being is that the House Bill 443 ZOTA was enacted. And so these couple items that we had already proposed and designed with the parking, I mean with the entrance, is no longer permitted. And so that's why we're asking for the waiver is because it was permitted in June, and it's not permitted today. And we worked with traffic engineering and with staff before we filed to try to make sure everyone was on the same page in regards to safety and functionality. And if you have any questions. Okay. Thank you, Brandon. Do we have any questions for Mr. Gross? Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Brandon. All right. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this plan today? Seeing none, do we have any final commissioner comment or questions? Mr. Mickler. I have one comment just before we, like, make a motion back to staff. On your all's recommendation, just coming back to that second point, where you say that the construction of a narrower entrance would not allow for the normal turning movements of delivery vehicles. I guess what we, the, I don't, I think the explanations that we were given were good, but it seems like the explanation really is that there's going to be that future cross connection looking towards the future across the street, as David was sort of saying, and the applicant, Brandon, was sort of saying. And that the, they're feeling that the wider and the additional turning lane will basically allow more traffic flow in and out of there. I take maybe a little bit of objection to saying that it would not allow normal turning movements in our sort of reasoning, and I guess maybe I'm asking the staff if they feel their recommendation would still stand with that second point either deleted or changed. I was kind of basing that on the auto turn exhibits, and if you look at the narrow auto turn exhibit where it shows the delivery vehicle turning into the oncoming traffic, that's kind of where I came to that conclusion with the. Well, I guess I just want to, I want to be careful here, because I'm not opposed to us moving forward with their waiver requests, but we just sort of made this recommendation of 30-foot commercial entrances. Well, commercial properties are going to have deliveries of large vehicles, and I don't know that we want to say that the reason for the waiver request is because a large vehicle can't turn in a 30-foot entrance. That's all. Does that make sense? So it's more of looking forward to these other reasons and saying we need to dig a little bit deeper if we're going to allow a wider entrance than just a truck turning radius. And so in this instance, really have the applicant's justification on the record, and it be more than just, well, it's for truck access. But whereas in this instance, it's in essence three or four different justifications. Well, yeah, and it's in essence becoming a full intersection with a future development across the street. Right, okay. I think that's a very good point. Okay. All right. Well, the floor is certainly open. I suppose we will handle, do we handle each variance on its own or waiver and then the plan as a whole? Is that the proper? Yeah, we're only approving the waivers. We don't need to approve the plan. It's already been approved by tech committee. All righty. And does each waiver need its own motion? No, not necessarily unless you think there will be dissension. No, not with us. Yes, sir, Mr. Forrester. Excuse me. I'd like to make a motion for PLN WAV 25-2. And these are the two waivers as presented by staff. Before we vote, there are some members of the audience, and I just want to make sure that they were here for this item. Are you here for this item? No. Okay. Okay. So that's a motion for Mr. Forrester for approval of both waivers. I'm confused. Where are we in terms of your request to revise the rationale number two under reason for approval? Does that need to happen now? I didn't think you wanted it for this one. Yeah, well, that's what I'm trying to figure out. In the future. Well, I was just as far as it's not changing the waiver. It was just instead of maybe saying why the reason provided by staff, by basically saying for the reasons provided by staff except for that it prohibits normal turning movement. They gave enough other reasons that it should be able to stand, I think. You want it to remove number two? You can't remove it. The ordinance says we have to have those three findings. So you have to have a reason for the second finding. The extent of the waiver of this particular regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford the applicant to construct their entrance. So they haven't asked for an 80-foot entrance, right? The requirement's 30. They've asked for 40. That's what allows the truck to turn. It could be to construct it with the turning lanes, right? Because it's not just the truck radius. What we were hearing is it's the truck radius and the turning lanes. So I don't mind you amending the finding, but we can't delete it. Okay. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like there's a comfort level with amending that finding. As Mr. Michler has discussed, if the Planning Commission would like, ultimately it's up to you. All right. Hold on. What does Mr. Penn think? Yeah, Mr. Penn. Well, I think you're talking about two different things. You're talking about what their waiver request is, and you're talking about the fact that you don't think that the regulation is wide enough. So everybody's going to have to ask for a waiver that has a commercial property. Is that what you're saying? Well, that's what I'm worried would be implied by this rationale, that if we say 30 feet isn't that we're granting this waiver because 30 feet isn't wide enough for a truck to turn in, then that is like, I mean, what commercial property is not going to want a truck to turn into it? And so I guess my feeling is, is that are we saying that? Or do we want to change the rationale for this waiver to be more specific? And that would be where I would come in because it seems like we want to change this one because what we're hearing from traffic is that they're viewing this as becoming like a four-way intersection. And I just feel like we could do with a little bit better language as our reasoning for that. But my only rebuttal to that is that that's part of the findings that we're finding to grant this waiver. So if you're changing the findings, actually you're changing the regulation. You're just doing it one development plan at a time. So is this something to tackle right now? Why would we tackle it later? I thought you wanted to tackle it later. That's why I did it that way. So it's my fault. Well, mine, I just want clarification. Yeah, I'm sorry. Well, maybe you all aren't as uncomfortable about stating that- I wouldn't want to change it. Yes. I'm uncomfortable with stating the rationale as the trucks can't turn in here. Yeah. But I think there's a legality piece to it. So I'm going to look at legal. Is there more comment? I have a suggestion to see if this will get you where you might be going. Because I understand what you're saying and I understand what Mr. Penn's saying. So see if this works for both of you. If it doesn't, that's fine. But I think you could leave the finding in number two to say what it says, but to add the language at the end after the word vehicle that says, at this location with a right and left egress lane and a future four-way intersection. Does that solve your concern? Great. Okay. Thank you, Tracy. Mr. Forrester, are you willing to amend your motion? Yes, I am. Based on legal comments. Okay. Thank you. And does that motion have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Wirth. Any discussion? Thank you, Rob. That was very good. Thank you. We'll put that to a vote. All right. Okay. I'm missing one vote. Molly? Molly, could you? There you go. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Ivy. All right. Thank you, staff and applicant on that one. We really appreciate it. Let's see here. I believe- We need approval of the- No. We do not need approval of the plan, correct? Because it was already approved back in July. Correct. It was approved by the Technical Review Committee. Right. Okay. Now, let's see. I believe this is our final item on the agenda today on page 6. PLN MJDP 2552. Thank you, Chris. This is a Gainesway Mall Shopping Center, Southeastern Hills Subdivision Unit 3. This is located at 1163 and 1165 Center Parkway. This is a development plan also with two waiver requests. You should have a purple sheet in your packet. This is the revised staff report. The applicant did submit a revised plan on October 7th. The purpose of the plan is to depict parking and circulation for a new multi-tenant retail building. Waivers of zoning ordinance articles 16-6A1 and 16-6A3 have been requested. This is Center Parkway to the plan south and Appian Way to the right. There's the existing shopping center. The proposed location is currently a parking lot on the corner of Center Parkway and Appian Way. They're proposing a 13,140 square foot multi-tenant building with some reconfigured parking in the front. It kind of ties into the existing parking. They're also showing a one-way drive that circles the building kind of parallel to the roadways. They're proposing it as one way, 16.35 feet in width. Under the requirements not met, number one, provide sidewalk for all adjacent rights of way to the building entrance that meets zoning ordinance article 16-6A3. And of course, this is the subject of one of the waiver requests. Number two, revise dumpster enclosure detail to include gate retainers, drop rods, along with drilled holes and one additional bollard. Number three, provide open space exhibit that complies with the zoning ordinance article 20 and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number four, provide crosswalk or sidewalk to the park per zoning ordinance article 20-5. And that is in this top right location just off of the screen. Kind of shows up on the overall plan in this area here. And then number five, submit tree protection plan that complies with zoning ordinance article 26-4C and denote tree protection areas per zoning ordinance article 26-2. And the waiver's necessary, article 16-6A1, no VUA in front yard for corner lots. And so this is a corner lot and the 16.35 foot wide drive aisle is VUA within that front yard for the structure. And then number two, waiver of article 16-6A3, and that's direct pedestrian access to the rights of way. So their proposed property boundary is the edge of this colored area. And there's some topography, and I'll get more into this into the waiver report. There's a little bit of a slope from the roadway down to the site. And so they're showing connections just outside the property boundary here that connect to the right of way. And then with this being the proposed property boundary here, they're showing direct connections but just off site as well there. There are no design considerations noted at this time. Under plan questions or concerns, number one, please revise note number four to include public streets. Number two, is an access easement needed to allow this parcel to use the existing driveway? Number three, is a sanitary sewer tap available for each proposed lot if subdivided public sewers are needed? Number four, it isn't clear where the new lot lines will be. An easement for the proposed service connection may be required. Number five, what is the proposal for stormwater management? Number six, where is the stormwater management facility for this area? And number seven, verify that stormwater management requirements for quantity and quality are being met. And then on the second page, number eight, who owns and maintains the existing stormwater system? Number nine, consider if easements are required. And number ten, is a commercial maintenance agreement and an organized commercial development group to share responsibility for the driveway and the existing storm system planned? And then the standard sign-offs, we have engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas, bike ped, open space, division of fire, water control offices approval of the location of fire hydrants, fire department connections, and fire service features. Number ten, division of waste management. Number 11, division of water quality's approval of the capacity assurance program requirements. Number 12, US Postal Service. Number 13, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And then finally, number 14, provided that the planning commission approves the requested waivers. And that is the staff report for the development plan. You should have a waiver report in your packet. And again, under Article 21-9, it does allow waivers of this nature. And 219D lists the findings. And then 219E indicates that you do have the authority to impose additional conditions to mitigate the specific impact of the modification or waiver. The applicant's requesting a waiver to Article 16-6A, which states that on a corner lot, vehicular use areas shall not be in the front yard. And a second waiver, Article 16-6A3, which requires direct connection of required internal pedestrian walkways to all adjacent rights-of-way. This initial development submission depicts a 16-foot unidirectional drive lane that circles the rear of the building along Center Parkway and Appian Way. Because the site is approximately 14 feet below Center Parkway, the applicant indicates that the grade difference between the adjacent rights-of-way and proposed development can naturally hide the vehicular use area. So they're indicating that this drive won't be easily available from the right-of-way because it's the lower grade. And then the division of fires indicated that the drive depicted is important for fire access to the proposed 13,140 square foot multi-tenant commercial building. That provides some direct access for emergency services to the building based on the proposed location. The applicant has provided an auto-turn exhibit that showed that the apparatus would be able to get around the building at that dimension for the drive. And then also, no parking is proposed between the structure and the rights-of-way to minimize the amount of VUA proposed in this location. So they're only proposing the driveway, no additional parking or any other VUA in addition to that. Regarding the second waiver of Article 16-6A3, which requires a direct connection of internal pedestrian walkways to the public rights-of-way, the applicant is proposing connections to the sidewalks across other adjacent properties, but not directly from the subject property. They suggest that due to an elevation difference of 14 feet and earthen embankment and mature sycamore trees along the existing sidewalks, a direct connection of the internal pedestrian walkways to the public rights-of-way is prohibitive. The applicant has configured a pedestrian access to both Appian Way and Center Parkway that can be ADA accessible. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of Article 16-6A1 of the zoning ordinance for the following reasons. Number one, the waiver will not compromise public health, safety, and welfare and will have minimal adverse impacts due to the VUA and the front yards because of the grade separation between the site and the roadway and because the division of fire indicated that the drive depicted is important for fire access. Number two, the extent of the waiver of this particular regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant. As the drive aisle is one direction and does not include any parking spaces. And then finally, number three on this, a strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. In the second waiver request, we're also recommending approval for a waiver of Article 16-6A3 of the zoning ordinance. Number one, the waiver request does not compromise public health, safety, and welfare as reasonable pedestrian connections are possible immediately outside the subject property, which meets the intent of Article 16-6A3. And the extent of the waiver of this particular regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant as access to the adjoining rights of way is provided in two direction and is ADA compliant. And then finally, number three, a strict application of the provision of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant due to the existing topography and presence of mature trees. And then finally, these recommendations are made subject to the following additional requirements. A, that they depict the single lane drive lane to the approval of the division of fire on the final development plan. And B, meet the requirements to connect to the public rights of way from internal pedestrian walkways to the approval of the bicycle pedestrian coordinator. Great, okay. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Molly, do you? Thank you. Chris, I had a couple of questions. Where is the front of the building, say, where customers might come in? It's- Is it facing- It's facing- Center or facing the parking? Internal to the property. Okay, internal to the property. Yeah, so facing- So people come in there, okay. Then is the purpose of the access road then to provide for deliveries at the back of buildings? I believe so, but the applicant may be able to clarify that. Okay. And then the corners of that red building look very close to that road. Is that still to be defined how close the building might be? Whatever they're showing is what would be approved, so I think that's how it would be. It looks real close. Yeah. Then for the parking, will they still be able to use the parking to the north? It looks like it has 18 spaces and two handicaps, and if they have employees plus customers, it looks rather limited, but there is a lot of parking still available. Yeah, I believe so. It's a good-sized parking lot, and again, the applicant may be able to speak to it if they have a cross-access agreement. Okay, and then the bicycle parking spaces, which are- Let's see, I had them there a minute ago. Two there, I believe that's it. Where did they go to? Oh, there they are. Yeah. Is that within the allowable distance of all the front doors or all the entrances? I don't know that it indicates the entrances, but I would venture to say no. Venture to say, I'm sorry? That it does not meet that requirement. Okay, thank you. Okay, do we have any more questions for Chris this time? Seeing none, thank you, Chris. Mr. Halani? For the record, this is Jihad Halani with Vision Engineering, so I guess there's a few questions I'll be glad to address. This lane around the building is basically for delivery truck, the intent for it, and also for fire protection. And, yes, the building is closed, so most probably there will be bowlers or maybe kind of setback a few feet from it along both sides. And the bicycle, we are proposing the bicycle at that location here, two bicycle. We need to add some on that location we can add to kind of spread it around. Okay, thank you very much. And you're in agreement with the staff recommendations? Yes, we are in agreement. Okay, all right. Thank you. That's great. Thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this plan today? Okay. Do we have any final commissioner comment or questions? The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Mickler. And on this one, I believe we do need to approve the plan, correct? This plan has not yet been approved, unlike the previous one? I move to approve PLN MJDP 25-52 with the two waivers and the conditions and reasons provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Second from Mr. Penn. Do we have any discussion? Yes, ma'am. In subdivision committee, we were removing the post office sign off for a while. Are we leaving that on or taking it off? We should leave it on. Leave it on? But did the subdivision committee, did they remove it? Well, I think we've removed it from the zoning plans. The zoning development plans, it's been removed from. But in existing buildings that already have mail delivery, we don't need them to do that. But for a brand new building, we should still be contacting them for a sign off. All righty. We had a motion and a second, I believe. I'm sorry, Mr. Penn made the motion. Mr. Mickler did and Mr. Penn was the second. Thank you. All right. Mr. Mickler made the motion and Mr. Penn was the second. No further discussion. We will take a vote on that and then hear from Mr. Duncan. Carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, Chris. Now, Mr. Mickler had all of it in one. Okay. Does any commissioner have anything today before we adjourn? If not, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to bring to your attention the schedule for the rest of the month. This is a five Thursday month and we had two work sessions scheduled, one for October 16th and one for October 30th. But in looking at the items that we had scheduled for both of those and we did have a month ago we had two full meetings. In that time, some of the items we determined are not ready to be presented. And they are not necessarily within our control. So what the staff is recommending is that we consolidate the two meetings into one and hold that one on October 30th as scheduled. And that the planning commission cancel the work session for October 16th, which is next Thursday. Mr. Forrester? Pardon? Is there any? Okay. Make that motion that we cancel the October 16th work session meeting 2025. That's your motion? Thank you. Is there a second? Okay, well I'll take Commissioner Davis. Is there any comment? Mr. Ben? Nothing? Okay. Okay. So that's. That's right. Okay. Well, motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, we will put that to a vote. Mr. Duncan? Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then just to punctuate, your next meeting is October 23rd. That is the zoning hearing. And we'll be back in council chambers for that. Thank you. That's great. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.