# Technical Review Committee - October 29, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · October 29, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6605 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6605?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-10-29 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 3, 2026 - **Length**: 9,822 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. 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 Technical Committee convened on October 29, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room. The meeting covered 2 agenda items, addressing both Final Subdivision Plans and Development Plans, both of which were approved by the committee. Over the course of the meeting, 7 motions and votes were taken. No public comments were heard during the session. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee considered and approved seven items at the October 29, 2025 meeting, all with conditions. Individual vote counts and mover/seconder information were not recorded in the available data. - **PLN-FRP-25-00025** — Approval of **Tuscany, Unit 15-A** passed with conditions, including removing environmental quality and capacity assurance from sign-offs and removing requirements not met note number one. [timestamp: 0:14:36] - **PLN-FRP-25-00026** — Approval of **Tuscany, Unit 15-B** passed with conditions, including removal of environmental quality and landscaping from sign-offs and removal of requirements not met note number one. [timestamp: 0:21:35] - **PLN-FRP-25-00027** — Approval of **Tuscany, Unit 15-C** passed with conditions, including removal of landscaping and requirements not met note number two. [timestamp: 0:28:04] - **PLN-FRP-25-00028** — Approval of the **Kentucky Utilities Company Property – Winchester Road** passed with conditions, including adding all existing and proposed easements, adding a construction easement to the Miller property, and removing certain sign-offs. [timestamp: 0:48:16] - **PLN-FRP-25-00029** — Approval of the **Cowgill Partners, LP Property (Meadowcrest)** passed with conditions, including removal of certain sign-offs. [timestamp: 1:01:18] - **PLN-FRP-25-00030** — Approval of **Southeastern Hills Subdivision, Unit 3-A, Block L, Lot 2** passed with conditions, including correcting the address to match the development plan and removing certain sign-offs. [timestamp: 1:09:16] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00055** — Approval of the **Little Beginners Child Development Center** passed with conditions, including amending notes three and seven and removing certain sign-offs. [timestamp: 1:19:56] All seven items passed. No roll call vote tallies or individual member votes were available in the record. ## Final Subdivision Plans [timestamp: 14:36] The Committee took up Agenda Item 1, covering the discussion and approval of various final subdivision plans. The plans brought before the Committee included: - **Tuscany Units 15-A, 15-B, and 15-C** - **Kentucky Utilities Company Property** - **Cowgill Partners, LP Property** The Committee reviewed and considered each of the submitted final subdivision plans. No specific key speakers, detailed debate points, or individual concerns are recorded in the available meeting data for this item. The Committee approved the final subdivision plans. ## Development Plans [timestamp: 1:19:56] The committee took up Agenda Item 3, a discussion and approval of development plans. Two development proposals were considered during this portion of the meeting: - **Little Beginners Child Development Center** - **Lexmark International Inc. Lot 9** Both development plans were brought before the committee for review and approval. The agenda item was categorized as a discussion item, allowing for committee deliberation prior to a formal vote. The outcome of this agenda item was **approval** of the development plans. No additional detail on specific speakers, presentations, debates, or concerns raised during this portion of the meeting is available in the provided record. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-FRP-25-00025** — passed (0-0): Approval of Tuscany, Unit 15-A with conditions - **PLN-FRP-25-00026** — passed (0-0): Approval of Tuscany, Unit 15-B with conditions - **PLN-FRP-25-00027** — passed (0-0): Approval of Tuscany, Unit 15-C with conditions - **PLN-FRP-25-00028** — passed (0-0): Approval of Kentucky Utilities Company Property - Winchester Road with conditions - **PLN-FRP-25-00029** — passed (0-0): Approval of Cowgill Partners, LP Property (Meadowcrest) with conditions - **PLN-FRP-25-00030** — passed (0-0): Approval of Southeastern Hills Subdivision, Unit 3-A, Block L, Lot 2 with conditions - **PLN-MJDP-25-00055** — passed (0-0): Approval of Little Beginners Child Development Center with conditions --- ## Full transcript All right. One minute. All right. All right. One minute. All right. One minute. All right. One minute. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. Part of the Tuscany property. This is the property that's backing up closer to the fortune drive. We have three plots. So this is going to be in the back portion of Tuscany close. Closer. So with that, we have requirements, not met. The building requirements are to be designated as a streamline. To pick stream center line. To pick vegetative buffer and I had note on plot. The note development shall comply with article 19 of the zoning ordinance. Design considerations. When will a letter of map amendment requests be filed? Consider replacing sugar maples with other approved large species. The plan concerns questions and concerns. I'll make sure that you review the comments and a cell for the division of engineering. Discuss street tree. Planting location and types. And for the staff recommendation, we have the following sign-offs, engineering traffic, landscaping, addressing, Forrester. Environmental quality, bike and pen green space. Utilities. U.S. postal service. And then correct all deficiencies listed in. As requirements not met. So I'm going to ask if anybody wants to be removed from this as a sign off at this time. Or if you all have any other comments or questions. But you can remove environmental quality. Thank you. You can remove capacity assurance. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Any comments about this plan? If not. If the engineer Rory must speak. I mean, should I wait for all three of them? Okay. Well, we got a recommendation. We got to do recommendation. Because we're we got to be more. Rory Kaylee EA partners. Under requirements not met. Number one. I don't think that's actually a requirement. The ordinance article just says that the lots have to be sequential. They don't have to match the PSP. And it's much more important to match the construction plans. I don't think that's a requirement. I don't think that's a requirement. I think it's more important to match what the property is built to, to record the lot. So that everyone's on the same page. I just, I don't know how that, why that's there. And. In the off number four for the stream center line. If my stream is off site. It's going to be on 15. C is when we record the open space line. And that's not actually a part of the plan. You need to show the. Vegetative buffer just because it relates to what's being constructed on this lot. These lots. Right. So if the stream is not. Close enough and not does not appear. Fine. But you need to have a vegetative buffer. If it affects a lot. If it's in relation, yeah. Yes. Yeah. If it's affecting the plan. Okay. Any questions. So. Just understand. Are we removing correct lot numbers to match preliminary plan. I hope so. It's not your time question for you. I know what you help for. That's why I said. I know. And for years we've discussed that it's more important to match the construction plans than the PSP. What's the ordinance say. Show me. Open up that red. That regulation. I read it this morning. It doesn't say it has to match the PSP. It just says they have to be sequential. We're talking a lot numbers. Numbers. I need to match the construction plan. So everyone's on the same page. Okay. Construction plans. So we're okay with removing. Correct a lot numbers to match preliminary plan. Okay. I know you walked right in. I just want to. Yeah. Sorry. I just wanted to make sure that we can get these things. For the record. Okay. I think. I think we got it. So. Construction plans. Why does it change from the preliminary subdivision plan to construction drawings. Why is there a change. Why not keep them consistent. Depends on the size of the project. We've had some where we break them into sections. So each section gets. A numbering system. If we're going to do one, they're going to do. You know, section one of the construction plans are going to be lots. One through 90. If you, because as you number across, they, we got 300 lots left, right. Across the whole property. If we don't start at lot one. Or even when we start at lot one. Might go around and. You know, end at 320. So we'd have one in 320. As you go through the development. Those lots. Change. You might not have the same number and then you're out of sequence. So what we try to do. Is keep them. Well, we like to match the construction plans. Construction plans. Don't always follow the PSP because of the changes. Or because of sections. The thing that used to occur more often was block. So you might have. One through 20 and block a. And then block B would have its own one through 20. But we don't see that very often. No, because that'd be even. I guess more confusing when we do this. That's the construction plans. We don't know where the final record plat. Division line will be. How far they get built. How many lots will fit onto a plat. To make up those. Groups or blocks or smaller sections. Each developer makes their own decision about where those sections. Start and end and for different reasons, sometimes it's infrastructure. And the way. You know, the sewer is going to drain this. This is the last lot. That's going to go that way. So we build it all together. Some of them do it like. Yeah, whatever. Instructed so far. Yeah. I want a certain number of lots. Yeah. Okay. All right. So the motion is for approval of PLN. 25, 0, 0, 0, 25. Tuscany unit 15, a. Removing environmental quality and capacity assurance from sign-offs. And removing. Requirements not met note. Number one, correct. Lot numbers to match preliminary plan. So moved. Before we vote. Is there, is there going to be a timing issue for the Lomer? No. Okay. Because none of these lots have. Have a floodplain on them as you've drawn it, but you need a Lomer. So. Yeah. Yeah. Tuscany out there. Yeah. Pretty much still everything from Ponteo. You're right. We got a lot of lives out there and I don't know where the next. Phase is going. So with the change in developer, that probably. So it changes the approach as well, but did you do the Clomer originally? Did partners do the. Yes, we've done. Yeah. Previous. Yes. Okay. Yes. We've done the work on the Tuscany plan. With the Lomer. Yeah. So it was, it's just a general comment because we are getting. Closer to the end of the completion of this. All of Tuscany. So that. Will be integral to finishing out the project. Well, we don't want people to have to pay flood insurance. If they are in a current. Theme of floodplain, right? If the lots are in the current floodplain and your Clomer is changing that. We don't want people to have to pay. Short term could be years and years and years. Yes. So every effort to. First, get the Clomer done or the Lomer done. But ensure that the lots you're creating are not in. Even the current. Which they can technically, but it's nice and helpful for the owners. If they don't. Right. Okay. So. All in favor. Anyone opposed. All right. Thanks. So, move down to the next item. This will be plan FRP 2526. Tuscany and at 15 be. Okay. Additional wants the green way. We were just in this area here. For the. Previous plan. So we'll have requirements, not met. Correct lot numbers to match preliminary. Which I guess we can just remove that since we've discussed that item. Okay. So. The green way now. Denote HOA is responsible for maintenance areas, labeled HOA. Design considerations. Consider replacing sugar maples with another large species. Kentucky utilities request utility easements along. Building line. On the front of the properties. Playing questions and concerns. Okay. So. The green way. For sign offs. Engineering. Discuss three planting location and types. Staff recommendations. As follows. For sign offs, engineering, traffic, landscaping, addressing. Urban forester, environmental quality, biking, pedestrian. Green space utilities. The U S postal service and then correct all notes deficiencies. For requirements, not met. Thank you. Can also remove landscaping. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions for this plan? As a general note, Lori. When you're locating the. Post office kiosks. Can we not walk the access to the green way with those. Oh. That was always our favorite place to put them. We didn't have any driveways. Walking into the green way. Why. So that there can be a sidewalk constructed. That goes out to the right away. No. We'll try to. I mean, you have that big HOA lot. That seems a little more. Like you have them kind of clustered together down here. I don't know why there's two, like, right next to each other. Figure that out too. I don't know why we put the second one in there. Plus people will probably. Park adjacent to it and there's no houses on that side. So if you put it on that side, there's like abundance of on street. Yeah. I mean, it's a lot easier to utilize to, you know, like they. To get there. Logically it might work better. If you did that. So, yes. Remove number one, again. And for the street trees. Oh, yes. I've heard. Okay. Sorry to hit you with all that, but just making sure we're. On the same page. Yep. I didn't know sugar maples. They are not. They just. In these disturbed sites. Okay. I'm planning on downtown where there's 30 inches of topsoil. They're going to be fine. A site that's. And she's floated to work. I'm coming back. The success rates might not going to be as high. So just, I was thinking just maybe. Trying to get something else. Okay. In there. Okay. We have to do all this stuff now. That's my understanding. So, the motion is to approve. 2526 Tuscany unit 15 B with removal of environmental quality and landscaping for sign off. And the removal of requirements not met. Note number one. So maybe. Second. All in favor. Aye. Anyone opposed. Thanks. Okay, we're moving to the last. Recreate for Tuscany, and I'm like, reply at F. rp 2527 Tuscany unit 15. C. So we were just, here's the property. We'll tie in over here to fortune. So we see there's a few lots. Buildable lots and then a big green way. They show this green light coming up and wrapping around. So that this area here. So with that, we have requirements not met. To note no buildings or structures shall be located on any land with a slope greater than 30%. For areas of slopes of between 15 and 30, the provisions of article 611 of the land subdivision regulations shall be applicable. We'll go ahead and remove condition number two of correct lot numbers to match preliminary. Like we did in the previous plans. Addition of green way, no addition of conditional zoning restrictions. To note is responsible for maintenance areas and label. Design considerations, consider replacing the sugar maples with another large species. Kentucky utilities requests utilities when it's a long building line in front of properties. Questions and concerns. For the division of engineering. Discuss street tree planting locations and types. And discuss maintenance of the island in the middle of the traffic calming detail. There's on this calming detail. Looks like a large area here. I mean, he's going to be responsible as that nature way or. We didn't know how that was going to maintain. Staff recommends our staff recommendations, engineering, traffic, landscaping, addressing. Urban Forester Department of Environmental Quality, bike and pad, green space, addition of utilities. U.S. Postal Service and correct all note deficiencies at this time. I'll ask if there's anybody that can be removed off this list. Remove the landscape. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? If not, is there any other comments or questions about the plan? If not. Rory, I believe island maintenance has to be with the HOA unless the city's changed their ways. Is there an option for the city to maintain it? No, you need to stay on the flat. All right. And just to clarify, is that a grass median or is it is it some part scape? I believe it was set up as a grass. Circle like a roll curve or something. Yes. OK. Yeah. That was a great zone change. Yeah. With the whole continuation. But deterring the semis or going through the neighborhood was that shape. And then I'm just it wasn't it wasn't anyone here. But yeah, I agree to that. But that's OK. Yes. OK. So if it's do you intend to plant landscaping in it? Not sure yet. I don't know yet. Probably when we get down to there, they'll landscape it. They usually do. And then we have to worry about the height and the visibility and stuff. So yeah. Just make sure the HOA is aware they can't plant whatever they want there. They should because it is still the right of way. One redwood right in the middle. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Or white pine that is like, you know. Blocks of view. Yeah. We don't want to do that. I just noticed down there at the very far left, you got Trade Center Drive on it. Where that kind of comes through. We'll take that off. Where it meets up there on the 4th. OK. Yeah. But that center line, that's not that's Citadel. We can't change the name of the street in the middle. Citadel's got to go all the way to Fortune. It's got to go to the intersection, right? It's got to go to the intersection. We can't change the street name there. OK. We always thought it was going to change the bad traffic circle. No. Can't do that. OK. So our road continues Citadel and it will go to Fortune. Fortune. OK. I'll have GIS take a look at that center line right now and have them update that. OK. So if we actually have a center line there, I'm not too sure we even have one there to tell you the truth. But I'll have them take a look at it and see and change it if we have to. But yeah, we can't change it in the middle of the street. OK. OK. So the motions for approval of PON FRP 2527, Tuscany Unit 15C with removal of landscaping and the removal of requirements not met, note number two. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next. Final record plat. FRP 2528, Kentucky Utilities Company, property Winchester Road, located at 2550 Winchester Road. The purpose of this plan is to dedicate right of way for realigned Hume Road and to create Lots 1 and 2. OK. So what we got is this is Winchester Road to plan south. I-75 is out here. This was the existing Hume Road where it formerly intersected or where it currently intersects Winchester Road. And so the realignment is this kind of S-curve. And then so what will remain will be right of way and then a larger lot where the substation is and then a smaller lot between the right of ways. Requirements not met, denote access easement certification. Number two, depict cross section for access easement. Number three, depict front yard building setback lines. Number four, denote Lot 2 as unbuildable or part of right of way. Under waivers necessary, waiver of sanitary sewer system access for buildable lots. So if this lot is nonbuildable or right of way, it doesn't apply to that one, but it does still apply to the larger lot, the requirement for the sanitary sewer. Under design considerations, there are none at this time. Under plan questions and concerns, discuss timing of construction and responsibility of access roadway to the Miller property. So, sorry, I failed to mention that, but there's an access easement to this property over here and we've recently seen a plan for that. And it shows the access coming from the Miller property over to the new Hume Road alignment. As a secondary access. Staff does recommend approval with the standard sign-offs, engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, green space. And then an addition of utility and street light easements as required by the utility companies and the urban county traffic engineer. Documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval of the capacity assurance program requirements, 11 U.S. Postal Service, and finally, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. With that, I'll open it up for discussion. For removal of environmental quality. We can also remove open space. You can take me off too, Chris. Okay. There was also a missing sanitary floor. Oh, okay. So, Lot 2 or Lot 1 has access to a sewer. I'm not sure if that happened. Close to the roof. Well, just when we create new lots, they have to have sewer access. So, you either need a waiver or you need to provide. Well, the line's there. The easement's there. It was just missing off this. Yeah, they're not showing any utility easements on this plot. I guess we just talked about the construction and maintenance of the timing, I guess, as well as the access easement. Construction, future maintenance, I guess. How do you all foresee that going? I guess also, is the final service on? Is guardrail up? When are those things going to be completed? Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. So, kind of where we're at. The road is ready to have the final surface on, and we've been in discussions. Normally, you don't put the final surface on until the road's been built for a year. So, we've been in discussions with Engineering and Traffic, and we've asked for a waiver within the Engineering Department to let us go ahead and put the final surface on now. And the reason why is we have to apply a high-friction surface to this road due to the S-curves. And to do that, the final surface has to be in for 30 days. So, we want to go ahead and get this going. We need the plat approved so we can do this. But the road itself, it's almost complete. What's left to do, we're actually going to have to close Hume Road for a weekend so we can finish the final part to make the crossover. And during that time, they're going to finish everything. The striping, guardrail, signage, everything will be completed. There's really not that much left to do on it. But they're going to close it on a Thursday night and then open it up the following Monday. So, that gives them about four days to finish it up. And they're going to do that before the cold weather hits so we can't pave anymore. So, but the plan is to have all this done very quick, you know, soon. I can't give you the exact dates, but very soon, this year. As far as the waiver, the front lot, I'm not sure the, this lot here, I can't read that, lot one, is it, lot two? It's non-buildable. I mean, it's just, the size of it, it's just not big enough. And a big ditch running down the middle, there's just really nothing buildable about it. So, we can add a non-buildable label to that lot. The back lot, which is lot one, it is KU Substation. They have no plans to put any building on it. And because of that, we would like to add non-build on that as well. It's an existing substation. They do have plans to expand the substation, but they will double its size. But there will be no bathrooms, no building. So, it's just substation. So, because of that, we would like to make that lot non-buildable as well. And put that note on it that basically is governed by a development plan. And in the future, if they do a building, they'll have to have a development plan that says, and then the sewer will be required at that time. So, that's the route we would like to go. Oh, we'll add that. Definitely, we'll add that. And what it is, there's a force main that it kind of runs across the front, then it crosses the creek, and then it runs kind of straight across that way. It kind of does a Z across the front of the property. And we have that. It's just got left off. So, we'll add that easement. The timing of the Miller property access easement. So, kind of how this evolved was Miller's access is on the front of the property, on the Winchester Road. During the design of Winchester Road, the state wanted us to close off their access. So, we had to close the median. So, basically, it turned their entrance into a right-in, right-out. Part of the agreement between the Calgoles and KU and the Millers was that KU would grant access across their property within this easement. The responsibility of building the road falls upon Miller. And my understanding, they have a plan in now for a zone change. So, they're looking at that now. In the future, maintenance, construction, everything about it falls on Miller property. And KU, their only stake in this is they're granting them access easement. It might be helpful to change that to a construction easement, too. And maybe put a note on there that you're granting them permission to construct something. Yeah. Not just walk across that peopling. And there is a, separate from this, there's a contract between the three parties. And in that, one of the exhibits has that as a construction easement. Is that correct? And it's an access easement and construction easement on the... Right. But we can add a temporary... It's a construction easement. It's just temporary. Temporary. So, everybody knows the... All the parties know that somebody's going to be constructing something there. Right. Not just... Because we weren't sure if you were building a driveway over to the Miller farm or a road cross-section. And so, there's not... If there's nothing being built today, you don't need a cross-section for that. Yeah. We don't... I mean, we don't know. We just... Okay. They said they wanted, and that's what they gave them. Okay. And is that location acceptable for traffic, in terms of... For engineering, in terms of accessing that road? I don't think they're going to be able to determine where they're tying in until they know what the design of the access easement is going to be. Because I think... And I haven't seen the cross-section of the S-curve that doesn't have slopes, a super elevation. So, how are you tying in an access easement? And then part of a super elevation? Yeah. Their entrance will have to match the cross-slope of the road in the easement. So, that's pretty common. But I think, again, those are details that won't be worked out until there's a design. Right. But we're not doing their design. This plan is only granting... But you're showing the location. So, I feel like that location might not exactly do that. Well, the location was there because that is where the break... Where it transitions from two-lane to the turn lanes. And there's a little gap in there between that point. And it was the only spot, really, where they could tie in. Any more in this direction, they're getting into the ditch that runs down through there. I think the concern is if you're making... Is that section super elevated? Is that part of the S-curve super elevated as well? Or is it just the beginning of the road? It's super... Yeah, it's super elevated. So, you're making a left-hand turn off of that. The slope is on the outside of your turn. Yeah, but these are very mild supers. Okay. That's what we talked about in our discussion. So, that's what the question is. Is that going to be problematic? Is it problematic to me? Does it cause a hazard for drivers making left-hand turns? Right. There's a lot of factors that go into determining the super. And it has to do with speed. It has to do with the radius of the road. And the super in that area is between 2% and 3%. So, it's not... It's not problematic when trying to pull an excess easement in. Yeah. Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicant. Yeah, essentially, that's a placeholder for right now. Like, we're going to give them an easement, but all that design work will be done presumably after they get their zone change approved and they sit down. And so, we don't... We're not building that right now. That won't be... That would not be built until such time as the Miller Farm is ready to be developed. And at that point, we can work through all those issues. And there may be that the easement's got to be shifted a little bit one way or the other. But KU, the Miller family, and the Cowgills have agreed that ultimately, this will be... And generally, that location, once we find a safe... And the whole point was is to remove an access point along the Winchester Road and have that development use an alternative to having another full access along Winchester Road. So, some of your questions will be... Matt can answer with what we're building and how it will possibly tie in. But until the Millers know exactly what they're doing, at that point, that's when we'll kind of design everything. So, what's outlined that the access easement needs to change, you'll have to come back and amend the plan? Yeah. Yeah, that would have to occur. If it does not fit in that spot, yeah, we'd have to... The plan would be to come back. One last quick... The area, I guess, that is owned by the Transportation Cabinet, have you got that... I guess that doesn't need to be reflected on here. What you're talking about is up here, this line across here. I believe it's labeled right there. I can't read it. My eyes aren't that good. But that line is kind of the demarcation line between State Right-of-Way and LQCG Right-of-Way. Is there any implication because it's a county road? Did we... I know we mentioned that, but is there any other... Didn't you have to get permission from the fiscal court? Yeah, the fiscal court, they were involved, or they should have been involved, and some of this is recollection. A couple years ago when we were having this, and I cannot remember whether it was a notice or we had to have a meeting. I just don't recall the exact details, but I do recall they were part of the conversation because I think it is a county road beyond the State's Right-of-Way, so they were consulted. I just can't recall where exactly the lines end. Gotcha. Okay. I do have a question while I'm up here. I didn't plan on coming up and talking, but now that I found the microphone, I might as well. Quick question is really on the sewer access, and it's on what is Lot 1. Essentially, Lot 1 already exists. It doesn't exist exactly in this form, and so the question is, do we hit the market as non-billable even though it's an existing lot? You're creating new lots. No, I understand that. So when you create new lots, all of the new lots have to have sewer access. Okay. First question. That's fine. And the second question is, if there is a sanctuary sewer easement in, that crosses that lot, would that qualify as access? If you would show the easement, it would. Okay. It's even more obvious to planning if there's easements. Oh, I understand. So potentially, if we show that easement, then that would satisfy the requirement, and then we wouldn't need the waiver or the market as non-billable, even though I think we all agree Lot 2 is problematic. Yeah, Lot 2, under the existing zoning, there's no buildable area because of the 50-foot front yard. Yes. No, I would presume that's correct. There's just zero. People ask for zone changes all the time, but that lot has other issues in terms of access and being a ditch or whatever. No, I totally understand. The reason I'm asking is because it would be helpful for me to get KU's signature if it didn't say non-billable. And so I think it sounds like if we show the sanctuary sewer easement, then we don't need a waiver or to mark Lot 1 non-billable. Right. Okay. The engineers are debating, so. Yeah. You're also missing drainage and storm sewer easement, which may go through that access easement. I don't know where the pipes are on this. She's correct. Yeah, it sounds like some layers need to be turned on, Matt. Yeah. So, yeah, we understand. We'll get that. My biggest thing is making sure I don't need to file a waiver by Friday, and it sounds like I don't presumably turn on those waivers. So, perfect. Less work for me. All right, I'm going to sit back down. Any other questions for me? No. Staff's recommended approval with conditions, and we're removing 6, 7, and 8 on the sign-offs. And I think a requirement, not that. We need to denote all of the existing easements and propose. Thank you. Yes. And if the easement issue then clarifies the waiver and they don't need a waiver, that's fine. So they need a requirement not met, number 5, to note all existing and proposed easements. And can I add another one? A number 6 to add a construction easement to the access easement on the Miller property as well. Okay. This worked? Okay, good. Okay. So the motion is for approval of PLN FRP 2528, Kentucky Utilities Company property, Winchester Road, with the addition of note number 5, add all existing and proposed easements, and note number 6, add a construction easement to the Miller property, as well as remove the landscape examiner's approval of landscaping by head planner's approval and green space planner's approval under staff recommendations. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. All right. Moving across the street. FRP 2529, Calgill Partners, LP property, Meadowcrest. This is located at 2550 Winchester Road, which is immediately across Winchester Road to the south. So this is the parcel we were just discussing. So the new Hume Road will come out and line up with Calgill. Is that Calgill? No. Hume will line up with Commerce. The purpose of this plan is to create lots 1, 3 through 5, 8 through 9, and 14 and dedicate street rights of way. So we also have a polo club to plan right to the east. And so we're dedicating lot 1. I'm going to have trouble seeing these, I think. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14. And I think this leaves out 17 because 17 is staying in the same configuration. I'm guessing. Maybe Matt can clarify that. And then the rights of way for Commerce, Paramount, and Calgill Way. Oh, and also Hamburg Park. That is portion of lot 4. Under the requirements not met, remove one of the two purpose statements. There are two that don't exactly gel. Number two, depict cross section BB on the plan face. Correct title of cross section CC to remove Calgill Way. The title says Calgill Way and I believe it's Commerce Boulevard, both on the cross section. Number four, depict adjacent lot and right-of-way lines to the south. If there are any, we realize later it may just be one large lot to the south and hasn't been subdivided yet. But if it has been, then there's no lot line. And it may be one lot. We'll see. And then number five, denote maintenance note. Number six, denote building setback line for each lot. There are no waivers identified or requested at this time. Under design considerations, address for lot 4 should be 1917 Paramount Drive. Under plan questions and concerns, discuss timing of extension of Paramount Drive between Calgill Way and Hamburg Park Lane and through lot 1. So on the development plan, it shows Paramount connecting through to the south. I just wanted some clarification on the timing of that. And then staff does recommend approval with the following conditions, the standard sign-offs, engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, green space, addition of utility and streetlight easements as required by the utility companies and urban county traffic engineer, and documentation and division of water qualities approval of the capacity assurance program requirements. And then number 11, U.S. Postal Service approval. And number 12, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll open it up to the committee for discussion. All the development plans had originally shown commerce as public, and these are shown as private, which is completely fine. I just wanted clarification on what the implications are of this. Because if you dedicate these as private and then try to go public, now you start the process much longer. You can remove landscaping from that. Anybody else? Thank you. Oh, there it is. Good morning. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. So let's see. This lot here, lot one, I guess the question is, why is it not subdivided? And the reason is, is they have a development plan that just got approved to do apartments on this lot. It'll create two lots when we do it. But at this time, we don't have the sewer built for both lots. So we do have a sewer. You can see the easement right here runs up. So until they get the sewer built, we're going to keep it as one lot. And the numbering, we're keeping the numbering the same as it is on the development plan. That's why we kind of skip around with our lot numbers. So ultimately, it's going to match what's on the development plan. Paramount Drive, the gap here, they're not sure what they want to do in here yet. So, and they have not constructed that part of Paramount. So we're not going to plat it until we get it constructed. And they really, they don't have, they're still working with what they want to do there. So at this point, they're just leaving that as a blank lot. It's got sewers to it. And then when this apartment develops, the rest of Paramount will get constructed then. And so the right-of-way for the private street will get added then. We'll have to come back with another subdivision plat. As far as public versus private, right now they've decided they wanted to go private. It's built to public standards. They're building the section that was approved as public. And it was built, constructed, inspected, everything like if it was a public street. But right now, it's just for maintenance of it. They want control over it more. Just to make sure they know it's not, it won't be as simple as amending your subdivision plan after dedicated private. You'll have to start at the CO's office. And then there's a longer process. And then if you install private lighting, which I know they wanted to do, that gets complicated as well as far as how that shakes out. So typically. Real quick, Brandon Gross here on behalf of the applicant. Part of the private public is related to our discussions with UK Healthcare. And so we're hoping to have some of that resolved. And then we understand, yes, having a dedicated later is a process having been through it before. It's not a process I relish going through a second time. But we have built all these to public standards. And so if the decision is made, I would presume it would be made very quickly. And so, but yeah, we understand if this is dedicated private, it causes a little bit of a bureaucratic hassle for everyone in this room, including us. Matt, you'll see my comments that are in the cell. It'll mention there are a lot of notes from the DP that will need to be carried forward. Yeah. And we need to define who's going to own and maintain the stormwater management areas. These will all be privately maintained by the association that's created. But we'll certainly add those notes. Any other questions for me? Matt, you made a comment about lot number five and they're not sure what they're doing there. This lot here. Yeah. They don't currently have a plan that they're not working on. What's on the development plan is a placeholder and they're wanting to do something grand there and they're just not there yet. Well, what worries me is you go slap a building right there in the middle of that lot and now you got a disconnected section of paramount. That can't happen. So that paramount has to connect. If it doesn't, then we got to change the street name out there. No, we understand your concern. Just to remind everyone, we're out in the expansion area and that requires us to do a final development plan to build the streets or do much of anything. My understanding is paramount is still on the plan. But once again, we have not necessarily separated them out on this because of the fact that we've got lots that don't necessarily have access to sewers and we would need waivers. But if we need to talk with you about putting a note or something on there... Just understand that if they want to put some huge structure right there in the center of that lot and we separate the streets, we're creating lots here where the address is on the parcels. And they've never told me they don't want to build it. They just said they want to play around with the cross sections. They haven't built it yet. So we can't put an easement right away on it until they build it. Just in case you know, we've got to have a connection, some kind of connection eventually. Would you prefer us to label it as Calgill Way? No, because we're creating these lots down here with paramount addresses on it. You're creating lots now with an address of paramount all the way around here. And if you close off that section on lot 5 and it doesn't connect and these apartments down here you want to build now would have to get a completely new address. We'd have to have a whole new street name and whole new addresses on those parcels. Not a big deal to me, but it'd be a big deal to you guys. Yeah, I think that's something we can talk after the meeting about with Vision and the Calgill partners and you. I think we understand your point. I think that's a resolvable issue that we can take care of over the next week or two. Okay. Staff does recommend approval with conditions. And I think we removed 3 and 8. Are there any other landscaping in open space? No. Okay, so the motion is to approve PLN FRP 2529 Calgill Partners LP Property, Meadowcrest with the removal under staff recommendations of number 3, Landscape Examiner, and number 8, Green Space Planners. Sign-offs. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? All right, motion passes. All right, moving along. This is our final record plat. Oh, there we go. FRP 2530, Southeastern Hills Subdivision Unit 3A Block L, Lot 2, Gainesway Mall Shopping Center. The purpose of this plan is to subdivide Lot 2 to create Lot 2B. So this is Center Parkway and then Appian Way. We recently saw a development plan for this parcel. This is the final record plat to create this Lot 2B in the corner. It's for a multi-tenant commercial building. Under the requirements not met, number 1, correct redundancy in the title block. Trying to remember what that is. Number 2, denote private utility providers and depict locations to match final development plan. Number 3, denote access easement note. Number 4, depict or denote cross-access if provided. So just how are we accessing this parcel across the other parcels. Number 5, depict required easement for proposed service connection. Number 6, denote all existing and proposed easements. There are no waivers requested at this time, nothing under design considerations or plan questions or concerns. Staff does recommend approval with the following conditions. Sign-offs by engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, green space, utility and street light easements, documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval of the Capacity Assurance Program requirements, United States Postal Service, and number 12, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll open it up to the committee for discussion. You can remove environmental quality. Open space can also be removed. Thank you. For addressing, I guess I missed this or my comment didn't get in or something, but the address that's shown on lot 2B is incorrect. The rest of the documents that go along with this are correct, like the building constraints. 1189 is what it should be, and that's correct on the DP and on the construction documents, but for this plan, it's missing that. It should be 1189 for 2B. Okay. We can add that as under requirements not met. That's number 7. Correct the address to match the development plan. Yeah, because it's on the DP, correct? I'm almost certain, and I know it's on the building permit they applied for, so correct on that, but this is missing. Okay. We'll add that. So for the note requirements not met number 2 and number 3, we have a kind of a typo there. Denote utility providers is the one requirement, and number 3 should be denote access easement note and depict locations to match the final development plan, so it got added to the wrong piece when I wrote it on the draft. The two access points that you have do not actually fall on this lot, right? So you need an access easement, and it's pedestrian and vehicular as well. You might also need just a note that talks about cross access and parking. That often is on plots for shopping centers. The requirement about this service connection, that's for sanitary. That lot currently doesn't have sanitary. I think you can probably make a lateral work, but you'll need to look at that. It's Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Yes, you're right. We've checked that in the lateral connection will work. So our hope is we can build the lateral when we build the building, you know, do it all at once. So do we have to have a non-build note waiver on there to allow us to do that? You either wait to record the plot until after it's built, or you get a waiver now. Okay. But can the waiver be the non-build note? No, that's not the way it's intended to be used as a temporary. Well, you are asking to record the plot prior to the sewer being available to that lot. Yeah, but I thought the non-build note, that's what it was for was so you didn't have to have a waiver. But this isn't a non-build plot. You're not doing a non-build plot, right? You're creating these lots. You're asking for a timing of infrastructure waiver. Okay. Well, we can certainly wait on the... On the plot until after the building is built. To get it certified, yes. Well, not to certify, but the line has to be in the ground. That's what I'm talking about. We can wait until the line is built to record it. Correct. And we'll add an easement on that since it's crossing properties. And then the access, we can certainly add an access easement from the roads into this property. So it'll come from two sides. And then we'll put a note on there about reciprocal parking and access across the development. Yeah. Not that long ago, we had one in Southland where it was four buildings all connected to one another. The three of them were built at one time and another was built at another time. Three were on a plot that had said they have cross access. The fourth one wasn't. So the person who owned those three put a fence in the back and prohibited. And I think the person lost too. Yeah. So it's like people in 40 years, there might be a jerk that decides they want to do that too. All right. Any other questions for me? Staff does recommend approval with the removal of six and eight under the sign offs and then add number seven to correct the address to match the development plan. Motion is for approval of PON FRP 2530 Southeastern Hills subdivision unit 3A block L lot 2 with the changing note number two to denote private utility providers and note number three denote access easement. Note and depict locations to match development plan. The addition of note number seven correct address to match development plan. The removal of the Department of Environmental Quality and the open space planners approval. So moved. Second. All in favor. Anyone opposed. Motion passes. All in favor. We're going to move down on the agenda. We're going to plan MJDP 2555 Little Beginners Child Development Center. This property is located off of Stone Road. There's a what was a church is now daycare. This is the KU main office on Stone Road. They had a board of adjustment case that they came in for and asked for additional square footage with the daycare because of the the zone residential so they had to the daycare they had to go in front of the board of adjustments. So they're coming in to make the changes that were required by the board of adjustments. So it's building addition and revising the parking lot in the rear. So we have requirements not met. Denote all buildings, paving, signs, fences, walls, retaining walls that are depicted, described. This is the new note per building inspection. Denote structures built in areas of alluvial soils will have foundation and footer details prepared by a licensed professional engineer. Prior to issuance of building permit, provide minimum eight foot landscape buffer to all R1B, R1C properties to comply with 10% requirement. Denote required 30% proposed interior tree canopy. Provide open space exhibit and include open space requirements and site statistics as percentage. Depict location of street cross sections. Depict floodplain elevation on plan. List significant trees in a single note. Addition of post development canopy coverage and methodology. Depict boundaries with a solid line. Clarify area of amendment on vicinity map to orient and to be oriented to plan. Dimension all driveways, walkways, including ramp and points of ingress and egress. Denote construction access. Remove the gray shading. Dimension storage building and playground areas from the Board of Adjustments. Addition of site statistics box for all required information. Correct mission certification. Correct lighting plan to comply with Article 30. Addition of bicycle parking. Vehicular use areas shall meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance Article 16, including a five foot setback on the driveway. Denote BOA number and date of approval. Under design considerations, see all Excel comments with the Division of Engineering. Address sanitary sewer capacity. Provide tree protection plan on separate document. Plan questions and concerns. Will property be utilizing a dumpster? If so, please provide dumpster enclosure and padded specification. Discuss use of gravel. Discuss dedication of stone road right-of-way. Staff recommendations. Sign-offs from urban county engineer, traffic engineering, landscaping. Addressing urban forest or Department of Environmental Quality, bike and ped. Open space, Division of Waste Management. Documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval of the cap. And then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met. As for the discussion question, gravel is not permitted on our properties. And after reviewing several of the aerials, in 2018, it didn't show the gravel, but in 2020, it wound up showing the gravel and there was no permits for the gravel. So we're not quite sure. How that was, how that was completed. So I will open it to the committee, see if there's anybody that can be removed from the sign-offs. I have a correction on seven. It's related to flood protection elevation. Since there's a detention easement, it would have a peak storm elevation related to it. And that building pad would need to be elevated to meet the flood protection elevation. Not elevated as in, I mean slab. Great. And I'm also not familiar with that pond. So I don't know if the outlet structure to that easement, how it's functioning. So if they're adding impervious with the pavement in the rear of the lot, they may need to make amendments to that pond detention easement. Not necessarily easement, but the feature. Okay. Anyone else have any comments? She already removed addressing. All right. Thank you. One other question is note 10. Mentioned dedicating a right of way. Yes. Did we just figure out if they were going to replace it? Did they record it flat at this time? Or not? I spoke with Mr. Baker prior to this. It looks like the improvements were made, but the plot was never recorded or never completed. So it never dedicated it. So I'm going to let Mr. Baker answer your questions. There's a mistake on number three there. To comply with 10% requirement doesn't relate to that. We can take that off of there. But we need to add one that says to denote 10% required interior landscaping and proposed interior landscaping. Okay. Okay. Anyone else? Remove fire. Remove fire. I'll have you on here, but okay. Cheryl, in my open space notes, I put the applicant needs 20% usable area and 20% vegetated area. It should be 10% instead of 20. Okay. Any other comments? Okay, I'll let Mr. Baker. It's Steve Baker, Midwest Engineering. Yeah, I think we're fine with all the requirements, not may it list. Just want to clarify, so the correction to note number three is essentially just splitting that into two separate notes, right? Okay, yeah. Gotcha. As far as the detention basin and the impervious area, we're actually reducing the impervious area because we're adding some interior landscaping. So I think we're going to be fine there. The existing gravel, I'd like to point out that was put in prior to him owning this property. So it is there. It's not really being used. I know one of the discussion questions was, you know, discuss use of gravel. It's kind of, you know, gravel that's put down six years ago and now grass is kind of making its way back like it normally does. So it's not critical to their use of this property. If it, you know, makes this group a little more amenable to it, they're more than glad to just remove that and sell grass back as part of the development surface. As far as the dumpster question, they're not using a dumpster now and don't need one. So there won't be a need for a dumpster enclosure or a pad. And then the big question about the right-of-way, you know, the existing development plan shows that it's a proposed right-of-way. The improvements looks like have been made many years ago. Clients are more than glad to dedicate the right-of-way if we need a final record plant. We're working with engineering to sort out a little bit of a unique situation in that these improvements are already completed. Typically when they dedicate right-of-way, there's some certifications and assurances about build quality and standards and I guess they've got a process for that, but we'll work with them to see how they want to handle that. But as far as the record plant, we're glad to file that, you know, as needed. I think our note on the plan says that we would, in accordance of the CO, of any expansion, so I think that covers it. I don't see any issues with what you've asked for, so glad to try to address any questions if you have any more. Thank you all. Okay. Yeah. This is a general approval of PLN MJDP 2555 Little Beginners Child Development Center. Amending note three to remove, to comply with 10% requirement change to denote 10% interior landscape and proposed interior landscape. Close enough? Good enough? Okay. And amend note number seven to depict flood protection elevation and then removal of sign off or addressing office approval of street names and addresses. I know Farah mentioned theirs, but they're not on here, so I don't think we need that one either. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? All right. All right. We're going to move down the agenda. Our next plan is Plan MJDP 2558 Lexmark International Incorporated Lot 9 Gerber Collision Amended. They are going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be This is the property located out of This is Newtown Pike. This is Freight Boulevard through here. Lot number nine is right here adjacent to Newtown Pike, which shows you a blow up of the low. They're adding parking circulation. Area fence and gates on the parking area. So with that, with that the requirements not met. Denote all buildings, paving signs, fences, walls and retaining walls that are depicted. This is the building inspection note. Denote review and recommendation of the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee and pick the right Royal Springs boundary on plan face. Provide table listing of vehicle use area, size, interior landscape required, interior landscape proposed, tree canopy required, tree canopy proposed. Denote landscaping shall comply shall conform with Article 18 of the zoning ordinance, landscape coordinate landscape corridor corridor requirements and Article 6-10 of the landscape subdivision regulations and tree protection ordinance. Provide open space exhibit that complies with the zoning ordinance Article 20 and includes open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Denote dumpster enclosure and pad specifications that comply with TSG. Remove West Road from plan. Provide vehicle use area that complies with the zoning ordinance Article 16-6 traffic traffic and bike. Denote width of entrance at throat of entrance and dimension all radii. Of the entrance aprons consolidate plan information on one page. Correct plan title to match staff report. Depict property boundaries with a solid line. Addition of adjacent property information. Addition of walkway to public street and legacy trail. Denote location of construction access. Addition of street cross-section and locations on plan face for Newtown Pike, Freight Boulevard and Setzer Way. Denote height of fence. Addition of tree preservation note from previous plans. Addition of site statistic box for the development for the whole development and completing all information including what not. Addition of purpose of amendment note. Addition of all notes from previous plan. Addition of owner certification division. Addition of commission certification. Addition of tree protection areas. Clarify the waiver being requested. Add note to planning commission for approval of the waiver. Addition of access easement and private street maintenance note. Revise outdoor lighting plan to comply with article with zoning ordinance article 30. Addition of bike facilities that comply with article 16. Addition of stormwater management. Denote stormwater management sanitary sewers and public street improvement shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LFUCG engineering manuals. There is one waiver being requested for article 18 for the landscape buffer for a double frontage lot. The design considerations see all comments provided by the division of engineering. Plan questions and concerns. Verify that new tree plantings will be part of the article 28 landscape requirements. Verify gate. I'm sorry. Eighteen. Verify gate will be clicked to enter. Discuss stormwater management proposal. Discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. As far as the staff sign recommendations with sign offs engineering traffic landscape addressing urban forester environmental quality by compared open space fire division of waste management documentation from the division of water quality the U.S. Postal Service and provided that the Planning Commission grants the requested waiver for article 18 30 and correct all no deficiencies listed as requirements not met here on. Excuse me. I will open it to you all to see if there's anybody that can be removed or sign off on this plan. If not is there any other comments or questions that you have for this plan. Thank you. If the applicant would like to come speak. Thank you Miss Gold. My name is Bob Johnson. I'm with MDM Services and I want to thank you for your review. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I want to thank you for your review and the comments on the report here. Hopefully we can address a good number of them in rather short order. And as Miss Gold alluded to there is a waiver that we are requesting primarily because on the court or they're the overhead power lines in the group A and group B trees designs. We're concerned that with Kentucky Utilities will have a conflict with respect to any tree canopy that would lie within their overhead court or their utility court or and then with the group C is shrubbery. And because for Shrubbery and agreeing to pay their utility fees for their utility fee good for the plan. A lot of times we come up with the waiver and it's