# Planning Commission Subdivision (Sub) Committee - November 6, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · November 6, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6612 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6612?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-11-06 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 3, 2026 - **Length**: 13,584 words - **Speakers**: Chair, Question > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Subdivision Committee convened on November 6, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room. The meeting covered 8 agenda items spanning a range of subdivision and development matters. Of those items, 4 were approved, 1 was tabled, 2 were postponed, and 1 was presented as informational. Across the meeting, 7 motions and votes were taken and 1 public comment was heard. No presiding officer is identified in the available meeting record. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took unanimous action on seven items during the November 6, 2025 meeting. - **MJDP 2558 – Lexmark International, Lot 9:** A motion by Jeremy to postpone this item passed unanimously, with all attached conditions and requirements remaining in effect. [timestamp: 0:08:55] - **MJDP 2560 – Ensminger and Martha Property (Waiver):** The Commission unanimously approved the waiver associated with this development plan. [timestamp: 0:30:53] - **MJDP 2561 – James P. and Corita W. Arnold Property (Waiver):** The waiver for this development plan was approved unanimously. [timestamp: 0:48:48] - **MJDP 2565 – Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8:** The Commission voted unanimously to postpone this item. [timestamp: 1:22:42] - **MJDP 2566 – Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lots 1–3:** This development plan was unanimously approved, with the condition that deficiencies noted by staff be corrected. [timestamp: 1:34:21] - **MJ-SUB25 – Cox Property, Revere Run Unit 2:** The Commission unanimously approved moving this subdivision application forward to a public hearing. [timestamp: 1:47:20] - **MJDP 2542 – Phelps Property:** The Commission unanimously voted to postpone this item to allow staff's outstanding questions to be answered. [timestamp: 1:57:09] No roll call votes were recorded; all decisions were reached unanimously. Vote counts by individual member were not available in the meeting record. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period at the November 6, 2025 meeting. [timestamp: 23:02] - The speaker raised safety concerns related to a daycare facility, specifically expressing worry about the well-being of children in connection with proposed changes to parking and pedestrian access. The speaker's concerns centered on how the proposed modifications could affect safe access to and from the daycare for children using the facility. No additional public comments were recorded for this meeting. ## Contested Items - **MJDP 2565 – Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8:** This item drew community opposition centered on concerns about a potential sinkhole affecting the proposed development of 41 townhomes. Attendees raised questions about whether the geological hazard had been adequately addressed before the project moved forward. The structured data does not indicate the specific parties who spoke against the proposal or record a final outcome for this item. ## FRP 2528 Kentucky Utilities [timestamp: 02:37] FRP 2528 Kentucky Utilities was briefly addressed at the Commission meeting. According to the information provided, the plan had previously been reviewed and approved at the Tech Committee level. As a result of that approval, the item no longer required a waiver, and it was subsequently removed from the Commission meeting agenda. No substantive discussion, debate, or presentation on this item took place at the Commission meeting, and no key speakers were identified in connection with it. The matter was noted as informational only. ## MJDP 2558 Lexmark International Lot 9 [timestamp: 03:11] The Commission took up MJDP 2558, a development plan item concerning Lexmark International Lot 9. The applicant requested a waiver from landscape perimeter requirements, citing conflicts with existing utilities as the basis for the request. No specific speakers were recorded in connection with this agenda item. The plan was ultimately **tabled**, with the Commission opting to postpone further action pending additional review. No further details regarding the nature of the utility conflicts, the scope of the landscaping waiver, or the specific concerns prompting the postponement were available from the meeting record. ## MJDP 2560 Ensminger and Martha Property [timestamp: 09:56] The Commission took up MJDP 2560, concerning the Ensminger and Martha Property. The plan under consideration involved a revised parking layout with access to Conley Street. As part of the application, a waiver of internal sidewalk requirements was requested. The Commission reviewed and approved the waiver. The item was ultimately approved by the Commission. No key speakers were identified in the available record for this agenda item, and no specific concerns or extended debate were noted in the extracted data. ## MJDP 2561 James P. and Corita W. Arnold Property [timestamp: 31:23] The Commission took up MJDP 2561, concerning the James P. and Corita W. Arnold Property. The plan before the Commission proposed two primary changes: a revision to the existing parking layout and a change in the designated use of Building 3 from its previously approved use to a combination of office and residential. As part of the application, a waiver of open space requirements was requested in connection with the proposed modifications. The Commission considered and approved the waiver. The item was ultimately approved by the Commission. No key speakers were identified in the available record for this agenda item, and no specific concerns or extended debate were noted in the provided materials. ## MJDP 2565 Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8 [timestamp: 1:22:42] The Commission took up MJDP 2565, a development plan for Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8, which proposes the construction of 41 townhomes along with a future road connection. During the discussion, concerns were raised regarding a potential sinkhole on or near the subject tract. This issue was identified as a significant enough risk to warrant further review before the plan could move forward. As a result of these concerns, staff recommended postponement of the item rather than proceeding to a vote on approval. The Commission followed that recommendation, and the item was **postponed**. No additional key speakers were identified in the record for this item. Further details on the sinkhole assessment or a revised timeline for resubmission were not noted in the available materials. ## MJDP 2566 Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lots 1-3 [timestamp: 1:34:21] The Commission took up MJDP 2566, a major development plan proposal for property located at Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lots 1-3. The plan calls for the construction of a 3-story multi-family residential building on the subject lots. The item was considered as a discussion matter before the Commission. Following review, the Commission approved the development plan with conditions, requiring that identified deficiencies in the submitted materials be corrected. No key speakers were recorded in the available data for this agenda item, and no specific concerns or debate points were captured in the source materials. ## MJ-SUB25 Cox Property, Revere Run Unit 2 [timestamp: 1:47:20] The Commission took up MJ-SUB25, a subdivision proposal for the Cox Property known as Revere Run Unit 2. The plan involves extending Marblehead and establishing a new street layout as part of the development. No specific speakers were identified in the record for this item. The Commission reviewed the proposal and moved it forward, approving the item to proceed to a public hearing for further community input and review. No additional details regarding specific concerns raised, presentations made, or debate among commissioners were captured in the available record for this agenda item. ## MJDP 2542 Phelps Property [timestamp: 1:57:09] The Commission took up MJDP 2542, a mixed-use development proposal for the Phelps Property. The plan as presented encompasses a convenience store, a restaurant, townhomes, and apartments. The item was recommended for postponement due to unresolved right-of-way issues that had not been addressed prior to the meeting. No additional key speakers or detailed debate were recorded in the available meeting data. The Commission followed the postponement recommendation, and the item was not advanced at this meeting. It is expected to return for further consideration once the outstanding right-of-way matters are resolved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of MJDP 2558 Lexmark International Lot 9 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver associated with MJDP 2560 Ensminger and Martha Property - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of waiver for MJDP 2561 James P. and Corita W. Arnold Property - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of MJDP 2565 Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8 - **Motion** — approved (0-0): Approval of MJDP 2566 Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lots 1-3 - **Motion** — approved (0-0): Approval to move forward with MJ-SUB25 Cox Property, Revere Run Unit 2 - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of MJDP 2542 Phelps Property --- ## Full transcript Good morning. Welcome to the Subdivision Committee, November the 6th, 2025. All right, let's just hop right into it with staff. On the first plan on your agenda, the FRP 2528, Kentucky Utilities, they will not be requiring a waiver, and they were approved at the Tech Committee, so that can fall off the agenda. It doesn't need to move forward in the process at this point. And with that, then we move on to the, we have no preliminary subdivision plans at this time, so we're moving on to the development plan. Okay, you there? All right. The applicant's not here today. The plan was postponed at the Tech Committee, and so they're still trying to figure out how they're going to do this if they want to postpone from the full planning commission. But I'll just kind of briefly give you all a little bit, because they're asking for a waiver of the landscape, perimeter landscaping. So this property is located out off of Newtown Pike, and this is Freight Boulevard, which then leads down here to Loudoun Avenue. This is the property in question. We have the trail, the legacy trail that goes up through here. There's a row of tree, or bushes that are right here between them and the building here. It's a, so they're asking for a, they're building a building for glass and parking. But they're asking for a landscape, perimeter landscape waiver so that they don't have to do the perimeter landscape, which would be here and then here, because this would be their front with the VUA for vehicle use screening. So they don't want to put, their reason behind this, they're saying that there's too many utilities there, so they don't want to add trees because of the utilities. But there's still approximately 30 plus feet right here that trees could be added, and also they could put smaller trees so that they don't hit the utility lines. But we're going to review and have a waiver report for you at the time of the planning commission. So they had a long list of cleanup because they're from out of town, so they're not quite sure of the whole process, so they were going to work on their plan. Can I go ahead and ask another question, or do you want to go through the whole, are they proposing to take out the existing trees? It's just bushes, not shrubs. No, but part of the perimeter screening is a combination of trees and bushes or a berm. There's a couple different ways to do it. So they're just feeling like the bushes that are there for the legacy trail are sufficient, which by reading the ordinance, it doesn't meet the requirements. I was going to say there's 30 cleanup conditions. I don't know that that's really, right. Then like I said, the waiver for double frontage because actually it's got three, Newtown Pike, Freight Boulevard, and then this portion here. This has the access point, so this would be VUA screening, vehicle use screening. So the perimeter would be the other two areas. So then we had just review comments in the SELA, verify the tree plantings for Article 18, verify the gate, click to enter for the fire department, stormwater management. They need to work with engineering on that and who will maintain that, and then we just have our typical sign-offs as we do for all other plans. Community traffic, landscape address, forester, environmental bikes, open space, fire, waste management, division of water quality, because this is a new project, and then U.S. Postal Service, and then provided that the Planning Commission grants the requested waiver. So we'll have more information on the waiver at the time of the meeting. So the landscaping is shown on that plan, is that what's existing, are those the existing bushes? Yes, because that was part of the legacy trail, and the legacy trail put those up just for a buffer on the trail that's put to the industrial area, because this property is zoned for industrial. Okay. All right, do we have any additional questions for staff? One that you said these folks are from out of town, do they understand the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee process? Actually I spoke to the gentleman yesterday, and he is in contact with them, and he was kind of like, oh I can't believe we are just on the very edge of the Royal Springs. The Royal Springs reaches down and it kind of cuts down through here, so they're just inside, so he has been in touch with them to talk to them and work with them. Like I said, this is a glass, like auto glass replacement, so he's not going to worry about the fuel being our biggest. So I don't think that they'll have a real problem with the Royal Springs aquifer, because of what their use is, it's not going to create outside problems. All right, any other questions for staff? Yeah, I guess, because the applicant is not here, any public comment? Okay, I think we've covered everything, so we're ready for a motion. I'm Jeremy for Postponement Appeal in MJDP 2558 Lexmark International Lot 9, with all the attached conditions, requirements, and so forth. Okay, can I get a second? Second. Okay, the motion has been made in second. All those in favor? Aye. All right, we're unanimous. We'll move to the next one. All right, next plan is MJDP 2560 Ensmear and Martha Property and Shaw Property, located at 425 Ray Street. The purpose of this plan is to revise parking layout with access to Conley Street. A waiver of the internal sidewalk requirements of Article 6.6.A.3.A has been requested by the applicant. So on the plan, Ray Street is at the bottom of the plan, Hawkins Avenue is at the top of the plan, and the Conley Street that was referenced comes off of Hawkins and currently stubs to the rear of the subject property. This is our subject property, Lot 4. The original development plan included, I believe it's a dollar store, to the west, and Lot 3 to the east, number 435, and they previously had a shared parking agreement with the adjacent lot. We did get, they did upload a revised plan, so I don't think we have, yeah, this is the revised plan. The staff report doesn't reflect some of the changes that have been made. I'm going to go through those and then I can talk about the waiver just a little bit. We don't yet have a waiver report for this one, but they have submitted a waiver request. Under requirements not met, number one, remove proposed on building on Lot 3, they've completed that. Number two, denote ownership for each lot, that's been addressed. Number three, depict boundaries of adjacent properties with dash lines also taken care of. Number four, depict contours, those are also on there. Number five, correct commission certification if tech committee approves plan, that can be removed. Number six, provide lighting plan that meets requirements of zoning ordinance article 30. Number seven, depict pedestrian connection to Conley Street, and then that's the subject of the waiver. Number eight, denote Board of Adjustment approval if granted, and I believe that's for the landscaping to the west that abuts the dollar store. Number nine, correct address of Lot 3 to 435, that's been corrected. Number 10, denote actual width of pavement for cross section AA location, remove varies, that's been corrected. Number 11, provide land disturbance permit to verify stormwater compliance. And then under the waivers, WAV 25-6, they've requested a waiver of internal sidewalk requirements of the zoning ordinance article 66-A-3. And so what the request is, they would be required to make a pedestrian connection to all adjacent rights of way. So they do have a connection to Ray Street, there's a sidewalk connection to the sidewalk along Ray Street. Currently, from what I understand, Conley does not have sidewalks, but they would be required to make a connection to the right of way. But they also have a required landscaping easement, and so there just wouldn't be room for the landscaping and the sidewalk in that location, so they're asking for a waiver. Under design considerations, Conley Street cross section must be at least 20 feet and have parking restrictions on both sides of the street. They have shown the cross sections at 20 feet. And then under plan questions or concerns, describe access to dumpster for waste pickup. Number two, are sidewalks located next to the covered porch in the front of the building? And then there's standard sign-offs that go along with all these, and one of those at the bottom is provided the Planning Commission approves the requested waiver, and then also that they correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements on that before they can be certified. And with that, I'll open it up to you all for discussion. I should mention too, previously, so this was the shared parking lot, and it did come around behind the existing, it's a funeral home on lot four. This plan shows that access being cut off, and they'll be taking their access from Conley. So Hawkins is here, and Conley comes down in Stubbs, so they're proposing to continue into the property, and they're showing five parking spaces. Then the waiver also would be for the termination of a public street. There's, yep, go back there. They don't need that? Okay. Just to clarify too, the reason it's cut off is there was litigation, and they lost access rights via that litigation. So lot four lost the right to access their lot, the rear, via that litigation. I'm not sure it's clear to me that they lost access. I think they lost parking. The ability to use parking in the parking lot. But again, that's not really our bailiwick here. So I'm confused about the players here. Lot three, is that the funeral home? No, lot four is the funeral home. Lot four is the funeral home, okay. And lot three is, I believe it's a daycare center. It was previously a laundromat. A long time ago. All right, any additional questions for staff? If not, we'll have the applicant. Brandon Gross here. I'll start, because this will answer some of Ms. Wirth's questions, and then I'll let Tony get into some of the technical items. There we go. So historically, this was all done in the early 90s, this original development plan. This was a laundromat. I cannot recall what this was, and this has been the family dollar store since I can remember. And the way it was really initially approved by the planning commission was this would be a shared parking lot, and then we would have cross access to a parking lot behind this building. At some point before the current owner and the housing authority subsidiary owned these properties, the parties entered into an agreement in which they agreed there would be no cross parking anymore. And so we started in a few years ago. We've been in court in front of Judge Van Meter, and Judge Van Meter has said, correct, that document that was released means that the funeral home cannot park in this parking lot any longer. And so due to the fact that there is no parking on Ray Street, the funeral home essentially has no parking within a reasonable walking distance, which makes it a little bit hard for us to have services. And so the court has not ruled on whether or not we have cross access to get to this point, but at this point the two parties are not in agreement on that issue, and so what we've tried to do is come up with this plan to essentially mitigate that issue so we can all just move on with our lives and stop litigating it. So what we're going to do now is the plan will be this will be closed off. We'll build up on Connolly so the funeral home has parking behind their building, and parking behind their building was always the plan since 1993. And so the only change realistically is rather than going through Lot 3, we will now go through Connolly only, and there will be no cross access any longer. But due to that, since 1993 to today, we have updated many of our regulations, and so that's why we need the waiver. But ultimately what our hope is is with this plan that we will be able to resolve the litigation between these two parties, and they can disengage and move on with their lives. And our funeral home will have parking again to serve their customers. That's kind of the overall strategy for this, and some of you may be asking why does a housing authority own a funeral home? The housing authority will oftentimes buy distressed properties and hold them, and so go back in time. For those who were a little bit more longed in the tooth and know this area pretty well, none of whom are here today because you guys are all spring chickens, this used to be a little hot dog shack as an example, and that was torn down maybe 15 years ago because it was distressed. But the housing authority bought this, removed that building, and then when this came up and went for sale, they also bought this. And then since it was a commercial building, they allowed the funeral home to rent, so they've been the tenant for a number of years. And I believe this is the oldest funeral home in Lexington owned by an African American. Is that? I believe that's so. So this is the oldest African American funeral home in Lexington. And so what we want to do is we just want to find parking so they can continue their operations at this location. So that's kind of the macro level, and I can answer any questions at that level if you guys have any. I think I know the answer to this, but just to put it on the record. In terms of people who are using the services of the funeral home, having landscaping but no sidewalk is not going to cause them any problems in terms of getting in and out of the funeral, access to the funeral home. No, because this is realistically, it's going to be for employees and for family member customers. And so there's no sidewalk here, and so we don't necessarily want anyone leaving here and walking the sidewalk and then having to walk down Connelly, so this would be part of discouraging people from using that. And we have access. There's a covered porch and a sidewalk, essentially from Ray Street to the building, and that's the main entrance. This would just be the rear employee type entrance. And I'll let Tony go through the various items. I guess we did file for a terminus waiver. We thought we needed one, so you can disregard that if we don't. Yes. That's correct. Yeah. Oh, trust me, I'm not complaining. I just wanted to let you know, you can ignore that request. Here you go. Thank you. Okay, I'm Tony Barrett, here on behalf of the applicant, as Brandon explained, is Lexington Home Ownership Commission II, Inc., which is within the umbrella of the Housing Authority organization, so they are the owner of the property, and Chris went through the development plan thoroughly, so I don't know that I need to reiterate anything, but if there's any questions of the proposal, I'd be glad to answer any questions. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. All right, thank you. All right, thank you. All right, do we have any public comment? Yes. Okay, good. Could you come forward? Yes. To the podium. Get your mic. All right, we can bring you a mic. We can bring the podium to you. We can bring you a mic. Thank you. Good morning to everyone. Okay. First and foremost, I want to make clear that myself and my wife, we are operating on a daycare at 435, and our primary goal that we have to abide by from the state is the safety and welfare of the children. As far as this plan is concerned, it's some discrepancies that were stated today that I need a little bit more time to intake and maybe talk with the planner, Mr. Channel, about some of the issues and concerns that I would have as far as safety. But it doesn't – what struck me mostly about one comment about it being the oldest black historical funeral home, and I would agree to that, but I would imagine and would want to believe that by now they would have a funeral home with a parking lot that would accommodate their patrons that sometimes are between – they have a occupancy level of 47 permitted by the Lexington Fairdale County Government that they should have enough parking to accommodate. Four spaces that's required in the back. They're asking for five, but it's only needed for four. So those are the discrepancies that I've heard today that I need to maybe just discuss with Mr. Channel some of my concerns. And one more that's very important. Myself and my wife, with the children playing outside in the parking area, we have safety cones out, but we're concerned about how the patrons are going to get from the back of the building to the front of the entrance on Ray Street without coming in the parking lot. Now, I understand this is going to be for staff, but it'll really be for everybody, anybody that comes up through there and want to park. It'll be for pedestrians to walk through as a shortcut, and it's a little bit worse. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have comments? Just real quick, there's currently a six-foot solid fence separating this area here. That's going to be retained. So there will not be any ability for a pedestrian to walk down calmly and then cross into this parking lot. And the people that park here will come in through the back. Once again, there will not be an ability, due to the location of the fence in the buildings, for people to cut through and then slide by and through, unless they're very, very skinny. And so our plan will be for all pedestrian traffic to be retained on our property and have no cross pedestrians. That's the intent. We're going to have a six-foot fence, and that's required by the ordinance, or the options on. But we're going to have a six-foot solid fence there. We can show that on the plan. Where you have the arrow pointing, can I show you? Yes. No, to your left. Right there. From there back towards Connelly Alley, it's a fence also. And do they plan to leave that? Do they plan to leave that during the construction and the curve? It's a curve also that runs along the fence line. That would be my understanding. Okay. If not, it would be taken down. Okay. Okay. Sir, does that address your safety concerns? Okay. And just a question. So is there something in place to keep people from parking over there when there's something going on at the funeral home? Is there going to be signage or something? I guess that's really for the daycare. Is there a way to – are you going to put up signage or something to keep people from parking? We have signs now that say no parking except for daycare patrons. But it doesn't matter when people are grieving and funerals are going. They just whip in there and we just have to grin and bear it. It's been an intrusion for about 12 years. It's been solved through the courts where they cannot park on the lot, but they do it anyway. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the committee. It's your pleasure. Okay. Good daycare. Are you guys okay with it? Given that the gentleman who operates the daycare has said the continuation of the fence will not present a safety concern, I'm going to move for approval of PLNM JDP 2560 in Sminger and Martha property with the attached considerations, concerns, and requirements to be met. So technically the technical committee has already approved the plan. Okay. So what they're asking you for is a recommendation on the waiver. Okay. So withdraw the motion and rephrase the motion. We're going to have to – we're kind of shifting our mindset on this a little bit because the plans do need to be approved at some point. So if they go to technical committee and they're recommended for approval, that's really they've been approved. If they leave technical committee with a postponement but still want to go forward with their waiver and so forth, like the first – was the first case one of those? Yeah. They had, you know, 30 conditions. That didn't get – that got postponed. Okay. So they have to go back. So we need a motion to approve the waiver. Right. Okay. That's really what the full planning commission is going to be considering. Okay. I'm here. I'm here for approval of the waiver associated with PLMJDP-2560. Do I need to – Second. Okay. Enough? Okay. Okay. I'm sure that's been made and seconded. Are there any questions of this? No? All those in favor? Aye. But none of that means you can't have conversations with – I can have conversations. Sure. Planning? Planning. Okay. Can we have – Something's happening with the mic. Everybody? Now we're good. Now we're good. Yep, now we're good. Okay. Next plan, MJDP-2561, James P. and Corita W. Arnold property, located at 2551 Richmond Road. The purpose of the plan is to revise parking layout and change the use of Building 3 to office and residential. A waiver of the vegetated and usable open space requirements of Article 20-2B has been requested by the applicant. So this is an existing property. Richmond Road is to the west to plan left, and New Circle Road is to the north off of the plan just a little bit. There's currently a vacant property immediately to the north, and then the property over here is a tank, stormwater tank. And so this takes its access off Service Road off of Richmond Road. The Building 3 referenced in the purpose, it's an existing building that's currently used for office. They're proposing to convert the second through the fourth floors to residential. There is a two-story parking structure attached to the rear of that. They're showing access to the lower level around the building and then off of Quentin Court, which ends in this location. And then the upper access to the parking structure comes in off of the main parking lot. There's an existing retail building and an existing restaurant also on the property, and they're not proposing any physical changes to the buildings, or to the parking to bring it into compliance in some of the pedestrian facilities. The waiver requested is there's 10% required vegetative open space, and they're requesting 4.8% and 5.5% from that 10% requirement. Under the requirements not met, number one can fall off the correct commission certification if plan is approved at tech committee. Number two, depict pedestrian connections to Quentin Court from the lower level, which they have shown here. Provide open space exhibit that corresponds to those specified in site statistics, and I believe that's been done. Number four, provide dumpster enclosure specifications for DSG and traffic flow for waste trucks. I believe that's on there as well. Number five, the 40-foot crossing will need to alter the parking area from striping to a physical island to meet the 24-foot crossing requirement. Number six, depict required minimum five-foot sidewalk from right of way to the building entrance. Under the waivers, WAV 25-5, it's a waiver of vegetated and usable open space requirements. Then under design considerations, provide land disturbance permit to verify stormwater compliance, and number two, consider connecting to the side street driveway rather than adding a 14-foot driveway to the side of the existing building towards the east. We have standard sign-offs with the condition that the Planning Commission grants the waiver and that they correct all the noted deficiencies. I guess for a point of clarification, I confused myself a little bit. We've gotten revisions, but where these plans were approved at tech, we don't need to provide an updated staff report. They're working on their sign-offs at this point for certification while they go through the waiver process. Just to clarify, what they're proposing isn't going to change the amount of hardscape on the property. To comply, they'd have to actually remove some hardscape to add green space. Is that right? No, they are adding pavement on their property. Drive all around the building. The connection to the plan north is also new. They're showing a connection into the vacant property, which I believe the owner also. That's currently what, green space? Yes, so tech committee, we did talk about if that was an opportunity to not have the circulation around the building, but instead use the property they own to the north here and that access point down to Quinton. They just indicated that this was a preferred option so that on this property you could get from the front of the building around to the back where there's additional parking. There is also a retaining wall that runs along that property line as well. I'm not sure that adding that back in, if that makes them meet the open space or not, they might just be closer to the requirement. To do what was suggested at tech committee, they'd have to remove the retaining wall? Is it going to go up to the other property? No. I don't have a good picture of what we're talking about here. Do you have an aerial? I don't think so, no, not on this one. What are they proposing for open space? I'm not seeing. We'll wait for the applicant. Any other questions for staff? All right, we'll have the applicant come forward. Thank you. I'm Tony Barrett here on behalf of Jim and Tita Arnold. Jim is here as well, the owners of the property. They've owned and developed the property in the late 80s. I think the big building that's the subject of the proposal was built in 91, I think. Basically, the parking field is increasing slightly, but it's also decreasing slightly. We're adding a stub here for future access to the adjoining property. We're adding a drive aisle down to access the lower garage and also Quentin Court. The driving force of this proposal is the conversion of this existing four-story office building to retain office on the first floor, but add apartments on the second, third, and fourth floor. We're reducing the office area and adding 18 residential units. This is an existing parking garage. The top level is accessed from the main parking field, and then the lower level of the garage is accessed in the rear. This is pretty much a service court for the building. There's garage door entrances along the back and then the bigger garage here. The garages along the back wall are basically just garages, indoor garages that pull in and pull out, so it doesn't go further into the building. There's a little basement area in the building, and then there's actually retention below the building, which was pretty creative and innovative in its time. The existing restaurant building, if you've been by there recently, it's under reconstruction. They had a fire there, so they had to redo the building, but it will continue to be the Miyako restaurant that has been there for a long time. Then the retail building will continue to operate as a retail building. FedEx is located in this location here. The French Quarter Suites is adjacent and behind and has some similarity, but different owners, different developers. Why I said we're increasing pavement and we're decreasing pavement, we've had to increase the interior landscape area to meet the 10% interior park landscape requirements. We've increased the size of the islands and provided islands where there were no islands, and that's in part our concern with further reducing the parking field, because we've already gone from, I think, 156 parking spaces on the original development plan to 129 maybe. We've already, in order to meet the interior landscape requirements, we've lost parking spaces as well, 125 parking spaces, including the garages. The open space that we have is, and where we added this, that would not provide us usable or green parking open space, because that would be considered side yard buffer, the UA perimeter buffer, which isn't included in either calculation. We would have this area beside the building would be considered open space. It's a walkout basement, so it's a hillside. So how usable that is from an open space, but it would be certainly considered vegetated open space. Our open space that we have, there's an area here, which is kind of a covered plaza, and then there's the not considered open space, but the lobby would be right in this location. So this is the main doors, so there's a covered plaza area here and then the lobby, and then we have a very nice pedestrian arcade that goes around this existing building that is considered and functions as usable open space. Our vegetated open space is kind of just smaller pockets that aren't part of the VUA restricted landscape area. It's been an existing development for many, many years, and an appropriate adaptive reuse of the office to residential. We're hoping that you all will consider our requested variance. In my justification, I kind of felt that kind of the lifestyle of this location would be a little more urban. It's one-bedroom units, so no children are anticipated to be living there, and kind of the usable open space or recreational activities would be more going to the local restaurants and the gym, et cetera. I did reach out to the French Quarter Suites, the hotel there. It's not French Quarter anymore, but it's... I can't remember the specific... Double tree, thank you, and asked them about if they had a gym or pool that would be available to the public. She indicated that they have a day pass for the pool that you could use for a fee, obviously. Whether you're paying the double tree for the use of the pool or paying your apartment fee for the use of a pool, you're still going to be paying for it one way or the other. That's an option. Center Center is just on the other side of New Circle Road, so there are options off-site and in the immediate area. With that, I'm happy to answer any further questions. Any questions for the applicant? Just a clarification, Tony, in that upper right-hand corner where you are talking about building a drive around the building, you said there's vegetative open space up there in the upper right-hand corner. Is that going to be paved? You're going to lose that vegetative open space? I'm not talking about recreational space. I'm just talking about things growing. Sorry. Top right. Yeah. This... Yeah, right there. That area there, yes. That would be considered vegetative open space. But you're not going to pave that? Oh, yeah. We're anticipating that. That's our drive aisle. That's our drive aisle to get from the main deck to the parking garage below that will serve primarily... Okay, so you're going to lose that vegetative open space. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out what we're gaining and what we're losing here. Right. Yeah. Okay. What we gained was the interior landscape area, the islands. Right. Over and above the use, the gain of the use. Did we talk about this at tech committee? I'm not remembering. The vegetative or vehicle use area screening that's required for a drive aisle, are you going to provide that on the adjoining lot? Yeah, we'll have to provide that on the adjoiner. Okay. Okay. Any additional questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comments on this? All right. We'll bring it back to committee. Can we hear a motion on the waiver? I don't like giving up the green space, but I think balancing out through it, I'm inclined to support the waiver. This is the way it looks. That's the way it looks, so that'll be going. Okay. We're back to this. This has been approved by technical committee. This is one of those where we agree to support the waiver or don't, right? So I don't like the loss of the green vegetative state, but given that we need the housing, given that there's been additions to the landscaping islands on the property, on the balance, I would move to approve the waiver associated with this. Waiver is ZR article 22B. Second. Motion's been made in second. All in favor? Aye. Motion is unanimous. Move to the next. Okay. We're going to move down the agenda. This is MJDP2565, Samuel H. Bryan, Track 8, Karnes property. This is a zone change. This property is located off of Clays Mill Road. We have New Circle Road down this way. This is north of New Circle on the east side of Clays Mill Road. They just did a large number of – Clays Mill Road's been approved all through this area, so they're rezoning the property from an R1B to an R2 to increase the density. We have 41 – they're showing us 41 townhomes with a street connection to the existing neighborhood, showing a stub that goes into another piece of property that's located down here. It's on R1B also. They're showing an open space, a detention area, open space in this area. There's a look of what the property looks like. This is the property right here on Clays Mill Road. You can see the – What does it look like? Yeah. I was going to say formally looks like. They've come in and kind of cleared out all the trees that are on the property. So I'm just kind of giving you – This is Clays Mill, Cecil Way. We have Neal Drive here as a connection. There's another stub here on the other side for Neal, but there's a piece of property in between. Like I said, this property is right here. This is Loretta. And so they're showing it as a connection. Yeah, they came in and cut down quite a few of the trees in the center portion of the property. They still have a few around the perimeter, but not much. During our discussion at the technical committee meeting, it was discussed that there's a possible sinkhole on this property. They hadn't made any notation of that on their plan originally. And so they submitted a revised plan. And when they submitted that revised plan, they showed – You can see it's barely there. That's why we kind of blew it up to show where that possible sinkhole is. It was by the state maps, and they were going to do some looking into it to review that, whether it's a true sinkhole or not. With that, it affects approximately 15 of the townhomes that they are proposing. So with this, I'll go back. Let's go back to the aerial. As you can see, they've come in and asked for a waiver of intersection spacing requirements. So this is the property here. They're proposing to have a street come in through the middle here. And then here's Nekomi. So they have asked for a waiver for the spacing requirements between the two streets. So at this time, like I said, this is a zone change. They have several cleanup conditions. They're asking for this waiver. Then we have our typical sign-offs on the plan. And at the time, planning questions, street name, where's the proposed stormwater basin, connection, discharge to an existing system. This whole area is a larger section, an older section of Lexington. So they've done some work in here. I'm not sure if it's complete. Discuss compliance with common open space. As I said, they're proposing an open space right here, but this is where they're also proposing their detention basin for the property. Discuss with the proposed street and off-street parking. Since there doesn't leave with the townhomes, this doesn't leave a lot of space in between the driveways to have a car park because their two driveways are together, and then that doesn't leave. So the idea is possibly to make a narrower street and give greater distance for the driveways for additional parking on the property. Discuss the roadway spacing on Clays Mill Road. That's why they've asked for the waiver. And then discuss the place builder because this is a zone change. And so with that, I'll leave it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. I do have one question. On the revised plan, it says that no waivers are necessary. Yeah, we'll have to get that corrected. They filed the waiver for spacing. Okay. That was the plan questions and concerns. The first, number five, was discuss roadway spacing. And they identified that, as the tech committee did, as needing a waiver. Okay. It just didn't make it to the revised? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Do you have any other? No. Yeah. It's on the original, but it's not on the revised. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. I guess we'll hear. Just a little clarification about who, in terms of the sinkhole. On some plans that have come here, we've required a geologic study. I don't see that specifically listed on here. Should it be? Well, we've kind of had some internal discussions about the planning commission has looked at sinkholes in various ways. I think depending on how much information indicates that there is a sinkhole there or not. So sometimes that land is left with no development at its own change. And they work around it. In some cases, it's denoted that's a potential sinkhole, and that those studies would be done in the future. In this case, there's not a lot of extra space to move your density around the area that's designated or denoted as a sinkhole. In fact, it covers like a third of the property. So that is, I think, a bit more concerning than some of the projects we've seen in the past where they might be working with 50 acres, and they can design around a greenway or, you know, an area. In this case, they really can't design around it because it covers almost the entire parcel from north to south. So I think it's really up to, I mean, we're going to have to work with the environmental planner and find out their comfort and engineering's comfort with even showing density at this point on an area. There are restrictions on what you can build on an area designated as a sinkhole. So it would behoove them to get some geotechnical information to more clearly define the limits because what we have is based off of the KGS mapping, which is referenced on our GIS mapping. Maybe it's not as large of an area as the maps are showing, but we don't know at this time. You know, what it entails. You know, if it's an open channel to the ground rock or if it's a depression and there's solid rock underneath, we don't know anything at this point. I would think, if I were the potential developer, that I would want to know more information sooner to see if I could even, you know, make my development work with less density, if that's a factor. As a planning commissioner, I'm sitting here saying I would not want to give my approval to something if I don't have any reassurance that, you know, a car, a house, or whatever's been sinking into the middle of it. Right, and once the, I mean, in any development in Fayette County, because we have karst topography everywhere, if there is a known sinkhole area or system in that area and development starts, they have to stop if they find a sinkhole, come talk to the environmental planner and engineering, and do the geotechnical study to identify the limits of the sinkhole. And then from there, subdivision regulations identify you have to stay 50 feet outside of, for structures. There's the ability to pave and cap something to allow for a road, but no structures, for obvious reasons. Well, sinkholes, I mean, sinkholes are all over Fayette County, so that's a known issue. But the applicant's professional, design professional, wasn't considered when they submitted their plan, so I think we have to kind of find out from them, is this a risk they're willing to take? Do they want to push pause and identify the edge of the sinkhole so they know how much they can actually build? Yeah. It's not just a risk they're willing to take, a risk we're willing to take. Well, the zone itself isn't a risk because they still can't develop, even with the preliminary development plan. But it is, when they ask to rezone, they're asking for you to consider, we want this level of density, we want this zone which allows these uses, we want these roadway connections. So those are some of the things. Well, and there's always a pause after a zone change, right? They can't move forward until they get their final development plan brought in that meets all the technical requirements. So in a situation like that, you can add a note that says the technical geotech has to happen before you file for your final, right? So that we have that information and tech committee can review it at that time as opposed to waiting until later. And again, on some developments, you can work around a known sinkhole area because your starting point is much larger. But when you start with a smaller tract and the sinkhole that we're seeing on a map is much larger, that just brings up, I think, a lot more questions and red flags for us, for you, for the potential developer too. Okay. If there are no more questions for staff, we'll hear from place builder. Jeremy Young for planning staff. I think a lot of the issues have been discussed, but Ms. Wade is correct. We are in agreement with the enhanced neighborhood and low-density residential R2 development that has been proposed. The big question is, is how do they address the environmentally sensitive area which could affect the comp plan compliance? So that's our biggest issue. It could affect the layout. It could affect the connectivity, which are some of the things that are required by the comp plan. So I think those are all things that need to be worked out before we make a final decision. So we've recommended a postponement of the zone change. Pardon? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. No neighborhood engagement has been done. We've recommended postponement of the zone change. Pardon? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. No neighborhood engagement has been done up to this point that we're aware of, but I think the applicant has indicated that they're in the stages of organizing a meeting to reach out. If you all have any questions about the zoning, I can... Okay. No questions here. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good morning. I'm Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Hopefully I can clarify a lot of these comments. Starting with the requirements not met, there's four items on there. Two of these items I'm certain can be removed because we've added them to the plan. It's the... Let's see. So, it says replace tree inventory header above significant trees with the words significant trees and add the canopy coverage. So, where that's talking about is here. You can see on the plan it says now significant trees. So, that's what that's asking about. And then as far as canopy coverage, right here it mentions the canopy coverage, and I believe it's at 53,760 square feet, and that's current canopy. Item number three, label tree protection areas. And then on the plan, this is the tree protection fencing. I assume that's what that means to label the areas. So, we've got fencing running all along here. There's a tree here fencing around it. So, we do have the tree protection areas labeled on there. Oh, no. We can add a little, like in the legend or something, add something that says TP, tree protection area. I hope so. But item one, dimension standard driveway radius. And I talked to David just before the meeting, and I'm going to send him. He just wanted a drawing sent to him that shows what our dimensions are. He wasn't necessarily wanting it on the plan. Is that correct? Okay. And then addition of record plat number four. We'll add that. We don't have that on there, but we'll certainly add that. As far as the waiver goes, we are requesting a waiver. The intersection spacing on a collector road between two local roads is 250 feet minimum. And so, Nekomi Drive and then our drive, which, by the way, is going to be named Holland Drive. The spacing on our plan, we have it listed here, is 123 feet. So, 250 is required and 123 is what we're asking for. And we feel it's justified mainly because Clay's Mill Road has entrances all up and down it that don't, you know, a lot of them are driveway entrances, but there are entrances all up and down that road currently. The speed limit is fairly low. It's 35. And then the sight distance in this area is very good. So, there's not going to be an issue with sight distance. Another thing we've looked at is the surrounding neighborhood only has one way in and one way out. And it currently has 93 lots. So, if we do away with this entrance, we would be adding 41 lots to the 93, which would require a second entrance. So, this is certainly helping the rest of the neighborhood to have another entrance. So, just I want to clarify. According to our GIS information, they're saying that Clay's Mill is an arterial street and not a collector. That may be because it was improved over the last five years. It, in fact, showed it was a major arterial, which I'm not sure. I'll have to talk to the MPO about that. But that changes the reference for your waiver. So, we'll just leave that. It's an arterial, not a collector. Yeah. It's actually, well, like I think about the only major arterial that has just three lanes, though, too. It is unique in that characteristic. But generally, there's functional use of a roadway, which is typically what I always used to think of. Like an arterial goes from town to town. A collector connects the arterials. But there's also another way of thinking, which is based on ADT. And so, a lot of our streets have a lot of volume. And so, we just classify an arterial basically means it has a lot of traffic. But there's just kind of two ways to think about it. And then one of the things, just to my thinking on this, and I'm not being asked to weigh in necessarily in this event. But the offset is such that where the left turns meet each other. So, in Nekomi, if you make a left out, you're not going towards this street. So, it's really the right. It makes sense. Usually, with the close gap of overlap, you're worried about that left turn issue where people are not paying attention. And that doesn't, because there's no. If the intersection is to the south, I would be more concerned. The opposing intersection, but because it's to the north, it's not. And also, that brings up another point I didn't mention was there is a dedicated turn lane down the middle of it. So, that does help our cause for this waiver. Moving on to the section under plan questions. Number one, provide street name suggestion. And we're going with Holland Drive. And I've checked, and there is. I checked the PVA. There is no Holland Drive. So, hopefully, that will get approved. Number two says, where will the proposed stormwater basin connect and discharge? So, this is our proposed stormwater basin, and you can barely see that. There's an inlet right here, and there's a pipe coming in to our outlet control structure, and that will be our discharge point. Number three, discuss compliance with open space standards. So, in this development, there's three types of open space I'm sure you all are familiar with. There's common area, usable, and vegetative. And the usable and vegetative are not a requirement, but common area is. One of the requirements of the common area is minimum dimensional size of 100 feet by 100 feet, and I also believe it has to have a certain amount of street frontage. So, two sides of this would be fronting on a street, and the dimensions, the narrowest dimension is 100, and I believe it's 120. It's 100 by 120. It is a detention basin, but to make it kind of usable as a common area, we've added kind of a walking trail around the basin, and the trees are going to be kept in there, and we're just going to work within the area that we have. Number four, discuss the width of proposed street. So, what that means is, Cheryl mentioned this, that there's not a lot of, well, really, there's only a few places where parking on the street could occur. One is here, and one is here, and maybe a little bit in front of, and maybe a little bit in front of the common area. Because of that, and the street being wide, it could present the opportunity for people to drive fast. So, as a traffic calming, we're working with traffic on possibly doing bulb outs and maybe even narrowing up the street. Right now, it meets the standard detail that the land subregs require, but we may narrow that up for traffic calming, and we're working through that now with traffic. Discuss the roadway spacing along Clay's Mill. That's the waiver, so we've discussed that. One thing I wanted to talk about was the tree removal. So, staff said all the trees were removed. They're not all removed. There were some internal ones. They weren't removed by the applicant, and they weren't removed by Vision Engineering. This happened before the current people bought the property, so that's all I know about it. We have gone on site, and we've identified all the significant trees that remain, and I believe there's 38 trees that are significant. There's a lot more trees there, too, but these are just the ones. You see them on the plans a little here. There's quite a few of them, 38. We believe of those 38, most of those can be saved because, I mean, there's some that hit in the buildings, and some hit in the road. There's one in the road there, some here. We can't save them all, but we feel like we could probably keep those 38, maybe 30 of them. Yeah. But with that, I mean, I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. Civic engagement. We have a meeting. Is it tentatively scheduled for next? Okay. The applicant has been going and talking to neighbors, but, you know, not as a group, but individually, but we do have something scheduled. Yeah. So do you have any comments on the sinkhole? Oh, yeah. I'm glad you mentioned that. Okay. We've talked to the environmental planner, and we've actually dealt with sinkholes a lot. I mean, Lexington sinkholes are everywhere, as said. And the mapping that, was it Kentucky Geological Survey mapping, identifies areas, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a sinkhole. It just puts it on there as an area potential. And so we've added a note, 18 on here, and I don't know if you all have had a chance to read it, but I'm going to read it to you because I think it will answer a lot of questions. I'm going to try to read it. It's very small. The development plan is located in a mapped sinkhole area. If a sinkhole is discovered, any construction or construction-related activity on the site, the Division of Engineering and Environmental Services shall be contacted, and the site shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Construction shall adhere to the geotechnical report recommendations, section 6-1 of the land subdivision regulations and the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government technical manuals. So that's a standard note. We've put it on a lot of plans that had the same type area noted on it. Specifically, there was one on Harrodsburg Road just south of where Publix went in, behind the Chick-fil-A, that neighborhood, very similar to this. And there's currently houses all built where it was designated as a sinkhole. I want to say it's designated as a potential sinkhole area. This is no different. It's a depression, for sure, with closed contours. The depth is probably about one foot over the whole thing. There's no visible throat. There's nothing to indicate visually that it's a sinkhole. It may even be an old pond, somebody said, that was there more than 50 years ago. As far as doing a geotechnical report, absolutely. We will do a geotechnical report. Do we do it now? I mean, normally we wouldn't do it at this phase. We would do it as part of the final development plan. And if it's required that we do it before the final development plan, so that engineering and whoever is interested will have information, we'll be glad to do that. But I don't think at this time it's warranted. We would like to keep the houses that we have on there for density purposes. And then as we move into the next phase, we may have to take some off. But that's kind of where we're at with the environmentally sensitive area. Your note is incorrect. It references what you read was 6-1, which is just like the very introduction to that chapter. It should be 6-11. I don't know. It may say that. I just can't read it. You said one, and I went. I mean, this is microscopic print. Say 6-11. Yeah, I need your glasses. No, I'm good. I understand what you're saying about this being very preliminary for a lot of that. The note that you did add needs to be tweaked some because it doesn't discuss doing a geotech either before the final development plan or before the improvement plan LDP is issued. So it just mentions finding it during construction. So that's a little bit too late for us, but we can work on that. But that is a standard. I mean, that was a note that environmental services gave us, and we've put that same note on many plans. I think that's a general note for when you know there's sinkholes in the area, but this identifies something on this lot. So we would like something a little more specific. But we can work with you to tweak the note. This isn't a preliminary subdivision plan, right? No. That will come with the final, okay. Right. We can build anything with this plan. It's just a concept. All right. Do we have any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comments? All right. Being done, we'll bring it back to committee. So for a zone change, you are still making a recommendation on the plan? I'm looking at staff recommendation. Still, even with the changes. All right. I think so. We have received a lot of e-mails about this particular project. And I think other divisions are receiving them as well. Well, for discussion, I would say that given that staff is still recommending postponement, I'm inclined to move for postponement. You guys want to weigh in on that? Since we don't have further. This wouldn't be heard until the end of this month or next? 20th. 20th. Okay. No, it's an early. Yeah. It's like, yeah. So having public comment and then, yeah, it's going to be tight as far as getting things we would typically expect in a zone change. So I think it's pertinent. Okay. You want to say anything? Okay. All right. All right. Madam chair, I move for postponement appealing in MJDP 2565 Samuel Bryan tract 8 as recommended by staff. Second. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Next up. Okay. All right, moving along. PLN MJDP 2566 Aylsford addition block 5 lots 1 through 3 Woodland Village. This is another zoning development plan in conjunction with a zone change request. This property is located at 401 Woodland Avenue at the west or northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Woodland Avenue. The purpose of this plan is to depict a proposed three story multifamily residential building in support of the requested zone change from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to a medium density residential R4 zone. You should have a revised staff report in your packet. The proposal is there's an existing residential structure, three stories, 24 units, kind of here close to the corner of Euclid and Woodland with an existing parking lot. And currently that parking lot goes back to near the property line at the rear of the property. What they're proposing is to reduce the parking but to construct a three story, 24 unit apartment building at the rear. And so the revised plan shows some changes addressing some of the concerns from the original submittal. Under requirements not met, they have done a lot of the cleanup items. Number one on the revised staff report, depict or denote stormwater management. Number two, provide a minimum eight foot landscape buffer between all adjacent R2 properties as well as the VUA perimeter buffer. List VUA tree canopy required 30% and VUA tree canopy provided. Number three, addition of common open space to the open space exhibit. Number four, perimeter landscaping and VUA buffer will require a variance of the zoning ordinance article 18.3.1 and 18.3.2.D. Oh I'm sorry, there's a variance in process for that, no waiver. Under design considerations, CSL comments provided by the division of engineering. Under plan questions or concerns, discuss stormwater management proposal. And number two, discuss place builder criteria. And then we do have the standard sign offs provided the urban county council approves the zone change to R4. Engineering, traffic engineering, urban forester, open space, environmental quality. And then also to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And we'll just kind of point out some of the changes that they've made from the initial submittal to the current plan. Originally they were showing an access point off of Euclid to connect to the parking lot with the dumpster enclosure located here. And that was primarily for waste management access. And after a lot of discussion, they've redesigned this to remove that drive aisle. And now they show a pedestrian connection out to Euclid, which they weren't showing previously. So they're meeting that pedestrian connection to both of the adjacent rights of way. They've relocated the dumpster enclosure down here. Currently, they're driving all the way to the back of the property. The dumpster is located in this area here. And then they're having to back out. One of the other things that was brought up previously was the access for fire and the trash pickup. So that's been brought up as well. One of the other things that was brought up previously was the access for fire and the trash pickup. So that's been a concern through previous discussions. But otherwise, they're showing their pedestrian connections. They've widened the sidewalk in this location. It was very narrow, so they've changed these to compact spaces and widened the sidewalk out to Woodland. So anyway, that's kind of the highlights of the changes they've made. They've kind of been moving forward trying to address, it seems like, the comments that we've provided to them. So with that, I'll open it up to you all. I don't know if this is the right stage to be thinking about this, but this is right on the edge of campus. Should we be requiring bike parking spaces for this project? Yes, I believe. There's bike parking here proposed in front of the new structure. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. There's four, okay. And the regulation is 10% of the total vehicular parking. Yeah, but they are showing bike parking. I think we may have mentioned, I can't remember for sure if we mentioned, that they may need to show bike parking on both buildings. I can't remember if that's on there now. Tony can probably answer that question. Okay. There are no more questions for staff. Then we'll have the applicants. Oh, place builder, sorry about that. Jeremy Young from planning staff. So the applicant has suggested second-tier urban, medium-density residential in an R4 zone. Staff is in agreement with those assessments. You know, it's on a transit line. It's close to campus, close to Kroger. You know, students can walk, bike. It's a good area to remove a parking lot and put more density. So we are in agreement with that. We are recommending postponement. There's a small issue with the variance request. They requested the variance along the VUA, but they also need to address the R4 to R2 zone to zone. So that has not been specifically addressed in the justifications, which is the reason we're recommending postponement. But I think that overall we're in favor of the zone change. Just to clarify a little bit, staff is recommending approval of what they've requested so far. The issue is that they requested a variance specifically for just the vehicular use area components. But if you look on condition number four for the staff report for this, that property perimeter, or more commonly known as that zone-to-zone screening, wasn't addressed in that. So basically if they want to add that to the request or change up the plan to meet that, they can do so. But due to notice requirements, that's going to require them to send out basically a new round of screenings. So we are recommending approval of what they've shown so far. But in order to make this work, there is another variance that's going to need to be added or the plan tweaked. So just to clarify that a little bit. Thank you, Daniel. And just to touch on, no public engagement has taken place that we're aware of at this time. So the question is, is there a need for a new round of screenings? No public engagement has taken place that we're aware of at this time. Any questions? Any questions about place builder or for staff? Okay. Thank you. Let's hear from the applicant. Thank you. Good morning. Still morning. Tony Barrett on behalf of Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC, Anderson Communities. With regard to stakeholder communications, we've reached out to Robin Mickler, and he passed us on to Greg Gettner. And Greg has been out of town until now, and Dick is out of town until Monday. So we're coordinating a schedule with the Aylesford Neighborhood Association for next week. We hope to have that organized next week. I didn't pick up on the variance discrepancy, so we'll have to get that clarified, and I suspect we'll have to postpone a month. So I missed that when I reviewed the staff report, so I got a little off guard on that one. But with regard to the development plan, Chris pretty much went through all the details there, so just if there's any questions. Happy to help. Any questions for the applicants? Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Is there any public comment? All right, we'll bring it back to committee. The approval would be of what's on here now, and then the variance comes later. Okay. And it would be a deficiency that's corrected by number seven. Okay. Is that correct? Am I right about that? Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN-MJDP-2566, Aylesford Edition Block 5, Lots 1 through 3, as submitted, including correction of the deficiencies noted by staff at the end, including those related to the variance. Second. Okay. Motion has been made and second. All those in favor? We're unanimous. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anything else? The first item under postpone and continue to items, MJSUB-25 for Cox Property, Revere Run Unit 2, Jacobs Farm. The applicant did provide a revised plan. We don't have a finalized staff report yet, so that's why you don't see revised comments. But I'll go through. So you would have seen this one before. Previously, this is Liberty Road out here. Sorry, I can't. I don't remember the road out there. Marblehead. So Marblehead stub to the property, so this would be an extension of Marblehead that's depicted on the plan. Previously, they showed a cul-de-sac, and then with an access easement, accessing the lots on this end of the property, including the three that would basically have double frontage on Liberty. They didn't have direct access on the Liberty Road, and then they also showed a 10-foot emergency access easement to Liberty. So they've come back with a new layout depicting a right-of-way with this turnaround, and then also a 5-foot pedestrian access easement out to Liberty. So they submitted the revised plan on October 31st. The remaining conditions that we've identified, they need to denote the arterial landscape easement for double frontage lots, and then they've submitted a waiver for street cross-sections. Let's see the best way to show this. The cross-section AA, there's a little bit that's off on the adjacent property, and then also this turnaround. So they've submitted a waiver for that. That's number one under the waivers necessary. And then design considerations, Kentucky Utilities request a utility easement along the 20-foot building line. Under plan questions and concerns, discuss stormwater management plan, and then sanitary sewer tap questions, and then their standard sign-offs with the condition of the waiver approval and deficiencies not met. The three waivers listed there were based on the previous plan. So those aren't – well, they need different waivers because the right-of-way requirement is 27 feet for a local street, and they're transitioning from looks like 30 to 20. And then this turnaround doesn't meet the subdivision regulations either. The question, does it meet fire requirements? We haven't had an opportunity to meet with the other divisions to discuss, but if Embree wants to chime in now, that would be great. I have not had an opportunity to review this, but so what was the recommendation on the turnaround width at this point? The plan doesn't have a dimension on it, so it's hard for me to tell. Rory Keeley with EA Partners, 20 feet when we get up into the – well, it used to be a hammerhead, now it's more of an L. Modified. Last month when we were here, we tried to do essentially the same thing with an access easement. You all told us to go back and try to find a modified street. The street section AA was in our ordinance a few years ago under – I think it was New Urbanism was its heading. That's out of the old ordinance I got. It was 21 with a 40-foot right-of-way. And then when you get down to the end of the street, you get to do a cul-de-sac. They have a hammerhead. In old neighborhoods, you'll see some of their Y's, circles. So we modified this a little bit so that we were not cutting deeply into the remaining lots. With the access easement, we had 16 lots. We are down to 15 with this layout. We kept the pedestrian access out to Liberty Road that we requested. Liberty Road's got a project over it. It's all going to be widened. There's going to be a multi-use trail on this side of it as it goes through there. With the improvements, they, the state, city, whoever's building, will be eliminating access points along Liberty Road. Right next to us is Garrardy and then one further up. Both of those will be eliminated for a new one, which is to be the extension of Old Rosebud. So this section of Liberty Road is going under some changes. Marblehead to the right of the drawing is the existing Stub Street Inn. That street section has its utility easements recorded and specifically talks about being able to come through there for the sanitary sewer extension from our property. To the top right corner of our property here is a regional stormwater basin as well. We won't have concerns about either stormwater or sanitary getting to those locations. The other interesting tidbit last time is the remaining Cox property here. Existing single-family residence. Same family that sold off the piece that we're trying to develop here. And it is big enough that it could further develop. So when we were laying this out, having our street system connect to them so that they could eventually redevelop if they wanted to. Currently the property owner sold off the piece to us and said that he was going to live in his house not looking to add to this development. So what we've done is where we transition the typical street section down to this requested AA section. We have offset it from his property enough so that we can have the utility strip in there and we can grade in our roadway. But we are showing that the continuation of the sidewalk would be with the development of the future Cox property. That lets us keep our lot depth of our units there. It gives us an area where we can grade without getting onto his property, which he didn't want. And then when he develops, he can add in a small part of public infrastructure just to tie pedestrian-wise. This is R1E. It's our smallest lots. We have a minimum and a maximum. We're looking at about 100-foot deep lots, 40-foot wide, essentially your starter homes. And I do believe with the waivers listed, we don't have access easement shown. We are just requesting the waiver of the public streets, which is this reduced section in the modified cul-de-sac. The hammerhead turnaround portion, one of them is 40, 45 feet deep, and the other is 90 feet deep. So your buses, moving vans, garbage trucks, fire trucks, I believe they have plenty of room to make the three-point turnaround. Just to expound on the reason staff kind of recommended this as an alternative is that originally they had a decent-sized access easement, and there was concern over an HOA of 16 lots managing that going forward. And so given that this is a constrained lot, we thought that the more prudent option would be to narrow the right-of-way, retain it as a public street, but narrow it for the 200-foot section, I guess, that remains, maybe not even that much. 440s? Yeah, 200. So it's not typical, but again, this lot's constrained, so we thought that was a better option. I will say I think you'll need no parking on both sides. I think you have it on one, but where it narrows, you'll need signage for both sides, no parking. Okay. Rory, I guess when I look for my sign-off, I'm going to have some questions about the driveways for lot 15 and 13 and how the standard driveway entrance apron would be constructed and the sidewalk tied into those. Okay, driveways. Okay. Yeah, I think I'd need probably a driveway easement up there at 13 and 12 as well so that at the end of that public right-of-way it'd be shared. All right. Any other questions for staff? I will add, and just to kind of support what Dave said, is that they did respond to planning and traffic, our concerns about the access easement, and this is kind of what we suggested, so they are kind of... I listened and followed. Yes, we had some good discussions about it. Okay. No, it's acceptable for fire at this point. Well, we lost a unit, but we're still in the margins. Okay, good. All right, anything else? All right, thank you. Any public comments? All right, we'll bring it back to committee. So what are we voting for? They'll be at the planning commission meeting next week when we'll discuss the waivers and have that as a... But we didn't have a recommendation for you at this point on the waiver. This one's a preliminary subdivision plan, so we were going to you guys regardless. Okay. Yes. Yes, right. Yeah, we were postponed last month. We'd like to have some positive movement this time. Yes. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN-MJ-SUB25 for Cox property, Rivera and Unit 2. Moving ahead to the public hearing, I don't know anything else on that sheet of paper because we don't have it in front of us, but whatever staff has listed on that paper at the time. Can I get a second? Okay, thank you. All right, motion's been made in second. To move forward, all those in favor? Aye. Okay, unanimous. Thank you. We're going to move down the agenda. The next claim we have is PLN-MJ-DP2542. This is Phelps property. This is the property located out Richmond Road, Aphids, and this is Old Richmond Road here. This proposal of having a C-store, a restaurant, townhomes, and apartments, all within this triangular area here. They submitted a revised plan because when they first came in, this is a little easier, when they first came in, they were showing development parking into the Old Richmond Road right away. Because of all the improvements being done on Richmond Road at the current time, that is state property. Old Richmond Road is state property. And to go through the process to be able to have acquisition or to have that as your property, the state is wanting them to wait until all the development for the Richmond Road improvements are done. Then they'll take and put the land into review to see whether or not they want to allow someone to acquire it. So with that, the applicant had to pull back out of the Old Richmond Road right away. So they took their parking, the landscape berm, everything that they had proposed within that right away, they removed that and moved it back so that it's at the edge here and just showing parking on the one side. They've also taken one of the buildings out and put parking in, and they have a note here that it's just a temporary situation until the issue of the right away gets resolved with the state. And if they are able to acquire it, then they'll come back with another development plan and revise it to put another building here and put additional parking. One of the questions is the landscape berm, 15-foot landscape berm. Not sure where that is. It's not shown here. They have a note on the plan stating that after acquisition they'll come back with another development plan, but they don't make any notation that the 15-foot landscape berm will be put in place at that time. So that's the question we need to have answered as to. Because this is the expansion area, residential. Here you have the Denton Farm, and then you have this area here, which is CC. So then you have the commercial versus the residential zone. So there was the agreement with the berm, 15-foot. They are coming in asking for waivers. They had asked for several waivers, VUA in the front yard, limited parking in the front yard in the CC zone, and limited parking in the front yard for Lot 2. So we have Lot 1, Lot 2, and then this is Lot 3. The vehicle use area, the amount of parking in the front yard, all adjacent here to Richmond Road. So they have waivers that we are working on to review. So we will work on that to have a staff report for you at the time of the full planning commission. They had a long list of cleanup conditions. Looking through them, looks like they were able to remove several of the cleanup conditions, but we still had some other concerns with the plan, with how they are adjusting it so that they can remove that right away out of their overall development. Then we have the typical sign-offs, and with the note that provided the planning commission grants the waiver. They went to the previous planning commission meeting. They had a one-month postponement, so they will be back again to this planning commission meeting. At this time, we still have a recommendation of a postponement because of the right-of-way along Richmond Road, and we're working on the waivers to see if they meet what they're required. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Questions for staff? Thank you. Okay. We'll go to the applicant from here. Good morning. I am more than my steps. Tony Barrett here on behalf of Anderson Communities Whatever entity of Anderson this applicant is. Anderson Acquisitions, LLC. Well, actually, the applicant is Anderson Communities, Inc. Cheryl pretty much brought you up to date not only until the road work is done, until the contractor is released, which could go on for a period of time for any number of reasons. So once the contract is released, then the evaluation will be assessed for excess right-of-way, and Anderson Communities can purchase their half. We had originally anticipated that the right-of-way would have been resolved when we initially did the development plan for the zone change, and it's the right-of-way along Old Richmond Road along this line, but also this area here along Aphids Way. That right-of-way, of course, is under the same requirement. So we have a parking lot here that came down and tied in at this location, so that's taken off and will be put back on in time with acquisition of the right-of-way. With regards to the berms, we would fully intend to construct the berms at the time that the land is acquired, and we'll return the parking and the berms as was shown on the preliminary development plan. We just carried that forward. So really what this does is it enables the Wawa to begin construction, and Dennis is ready to get started on most of his residential, so we've taken this building out. He has to have some parking. We've taken a good chunk of it out, so in the interim we'll put in a parking lot where Building D was, and then once this parking along the right-of-way gets constructed, he'll replace that parking area with Building D. I do want to point out that Wawa just sent me a revised footprint of their building, and it is a little bigger, so I'll need to get that clarified. It's basically going from 6,000 square feet to 6,400 square feet. It's the 2026 model or whatever. Yeah, yeah. So I wanted to make everyone aware of that so that it's not a surprise. But anyway, that's where we are, and I appreciate you all listening to the update there. Thank you. Any questions, I'll try to help. Okay. Doesn't look like there are any questions. Thank you. Did you postpone it until staff's questions or anything like that? Yeah. I move for postponement of PLN-MJDP 2542 Phelps property for providing opportunity for staff's questions to be answered. Second. We don't have another plan for you, but you stayed, so I'm curious. Oh, okay. Well, he'll be here. Thank you. Is that it? All right. With that, meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.