♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Good afternoon. Today is April 9th, 2026 and this is the meeting of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government's Planning Commission subdivision items. Our first item on the agenda today is the approval, excuse me, no approval of minutes are necessary today. We're going to go slightly out of order and entertain a motion for the approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, sir. Seconded by Ms. Wirth. Thank you. Do we have any discussion? And we do have a memorandum in our paperwork from Mr. Fairchild dated April 8th. All right. Seeing no discussion, we will take that to a vote. Okay. And that carries unanimously. Great. The next item would be postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any? Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is Russell Brown. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Clark Quinn Moses Scott and Grand 320 North Meridian Street Suite 1100 in Indianapolis. Represent the petitioner under PLN cell 26001. Property located at 2151 Royster Road. We informed staff earlier this week that we would be making an appearance today to ask for a one-month continuance on this matter. That comes at the request of the underlying landowner to have some additional discussions with my client, the petitioners, Tag Towers and Verizon Wireless. So our request today is a one-month continuance of this matter with re-noticing to those entitled to notice. All righty. Thank you. This is the application on page 7 under commission items. Would that be our May 14th hearing? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. We have a request from the applicant. Are there any questions? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Do we have any discussion on that motion? Okay. Seeing none, we will take a vote. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals today? Okay. Seeing none, that will take us to our next item on the agenda, which is on page 2. PLN FRP 268, Thomas and Ann Asbury property. Okay. Seeing none, that will take us to our next item on the agenda, which is on page 2. PLN FRP 268, Thomas and Ann Asbury property. Good afternoon. This will be the final record plat for FRP 268, Thomas and Ann Asbury property. We also have a waiver on this one. I'm sorry. Can you hear me? This property is located out in the agricultural area. We have North Cleveland Road on this side, and we have Briar Hill Road on this side. The property that we are looking at today, they have two lots that have already been cut out of this farm. There is a small strip of land here, and they're wanting to cut out a 40-acre track of land in this location. With that, since this is the final record plat, requirements not met, no building permits shall be issued until the health department issues for a septic tank. Identify the blue line stream on the property, addition of general notes to note who is responsible for the easement. Denote the Kentucky Department of Transportation and Traffic Engineering approval if they want a new access point. Currently, this property is accessing through a piece of property right here adjacent to it, through an access easement that was created by deed to Briar Hill Road. A waiver, we do have a waiver, and I'll present that here shortly. Design considerations, comments from the Division of Engineering, contact addressing to discuss address. And if there's no public sewer, then they need to do the septic. Subdivision, planning questions, concerns, joint maintenance on that access easement, we want to clarify that. Make sure that's denoted on the plat for the maintenance of the access easement. The subdivision committee recommended approval with the following sign offs, engineering, traffic, addressing, urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality, utilities, US Postal Service, PDR, purchase development rights, provide the planning commission grants the waiver for lot frontage. And then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met. This property is portion of a PDR farm. The farm originally was this whole piece of property. In 97, they cut this lot out and left 230 acres that wound up going into a PDR agreement with the PDR rights. Then with that PDR, that allowed them to further subdivide this piece of property. And that is what they're coming in for today, is to subdivide this piece of property off. They're asking for the waiver of the lot frontage because in the agricultural AR zone, you're required 750 feet on the front, and currently they only have about 57 feet on the front. So you're in one PDR contract on this portion of the property. This portion of property came in and was under another PDR contract. So we cannot mix the contracts. We cannot ask to move the property boundaries to include, to make the 750 feet. So that's why we were asking for the waiver for the lot frontage, because at this time, there's no way to be able to meet those requirements. I think that's it. I'll ask if there's any comments or questions. Thank you, Cheryl. Do we have any questions on the plat? Okay, thank you. Are we going to hear anything on the waiver separately? Oh, I'm sorry. No, you're fine. Yes, I'm sorry. So with that, on the staff report, it says granting the waiver will not adversely affect the public health and safety. And granting the waiver consistent with Article 1-5A of the land subregs for exceptional hardship for not being able to meet the minimum requirements. We ask that there be a note added to the plan, additional note from the PDR rights easement, stating that they're allowed a 2% impervious service area for the whole farm, which was the 230 acres. This can be subdivided, that 2% can be subdivided between each track that is created out of that farm. So we just want to make sure that there's a note that says to note total impervious surface is limited to 2% for the original farm. And 2% may be divided between all tracks based on acreage, allowing each track to have a primary residence and tenant housing in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Thank you, Cheryl. Sorry about that. You're perfectly fine. Do we have any questions for Cheryl on the waiver request? Okay, thank you, Cheryl. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Gary Rowland with CAM surveying. Today also with me is the purchaser, the potential purchaser of the property, Andrew McGinnis, and also Carson Asbury, who's the owner of the property. They'd be happy to answer any questions that may come up. We're in agreement with the staff recommendations, both on the plat and on the waiver request. The only question I have might be some clarification of item number five on requirements not met. As far as the Kentucky Department of Transportation slash traffic engineering approval of the new access, it'd be nice to clarify if there may be no need for new access. So I'm wondering, do we just need to denote on the plat that approval would be needed if access were ever requested, or could we just strike that as a requirement for right now? Because obviously if they're going to access a state road, they're going to have to get state approval to do that. So just clarification on that would be my only question. Okay, thank you, Mr. Rowland. The staff would request that that be a note on the plan, and really it's not for you and I who know that the Transportation Cabinet would have to approve access because it's a state road. It's to notify future property owners that if they were to choose to request that, it would need extra approval. Fair enough. Thanks. Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Rowland at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Gary. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this particular plat today? Seeing none, is there any final commissioner comment or question? If not, the floor is open for a motion on the plan and then the waiver. Mr. Pim? I was just worrying about how to get the PDR stuff over. I want to grant both, but I also want to say that when you have access easements of two people, that we certainly want the maintenance part to be taken care of. That's my problem with access easements is that you get two different property owners. One of them wants to pave the road and fix it and the other one doesn't. So we want to make that as tight as we can going forward. Do you want a motion? Yes, sir. Thank you for that point. All right, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN FRP 26-8. Do you want the waiver with it or separate? Does it matter, Ms. Jones? Can there be one motion for the plan and the waiver, or do they need to be separate motions? I think we've been doing them separately. Okay. And if you're approving, make sure you include based on the conditions. Right. I was going to finish with that. So I'm making this proposal for approval subject to the ten conditions approved by the subdivision committee. Second. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Second from Commissioner Wirth. Is there any discussion? This is for the plan. Seeing none, we can go ahead and take that to a vote. Okay. That carries unanimously. Now we'll move the waiver. I move for approval of PLN FRP 26-8, Thomas and Ann Asbury property, granting the waiver based on the waiver request. So the waiver is nine. Is the waiver nine? Oh, 26. I see what you're saying, Judy. Yeah. Okay. So is it nine or eight? There's only one that says nine other than it says eight. The development plan is eight. The waiver is nine, if I read this correctly. I read this correctly? Yep. I believe so. It shows nine here. Yeah. So the final record plat has a case number at the top of page two, and then about halfway down, the waiver request has a separate case number. Okay. And then the plat is just one number off. So the waiver is going to be under PLNWAV for waiver. And it's number nine this year. Whereas the plat is number eight. Okay. So subject to whatever Ms. White just told us. I was going to say, one of these days you will. And it has two conditions. With two conditions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Penn. And second from Ms. Worth. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. Okay. That also carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Okay. Moving on now. We're still on page two. PLNMJSUB262 Patchin' Wilks Unit 3. So this is MJSUB262 Patchin' Wilks Unit 3. This is a preliminary subdivision plan for a portion of the Patchin' Wilks property. We have Winchester Road out in this direction. And we're coming down Patchin' Wilks Drive. We saw Patchin' Wilks Drive going around this way here. And we looked at some single family homes up in this area. Now with this preliminary, we're going to continue down the Patchin' Wilks. And we're going to add this portion of Patchin' Wilks Drive heading towards the roundabout. And we're going to create 42 single family homes in this area. They're asking to have a private street come through the center of this property here. It makes a little blow up here a little better. With that, with the preliminary subdivision plan, we had requirements not met to note no land disturbance, construction clearing of native vegetation or mowing shall occur in vegetated buffer zone. Denote areas of alluvial soils will be developed in accordance with land subregs. Addition of proposed street names, provide a common open space exhibit per requirements. Depict all existing and proposed easements. Add flood plain elevations where necessary. Label existing farm roads. We do have a waiver on this plan also. I'll go through that in a moment. Design consideration. A sanitary sewer analysis is needed to evaluate additional flow on the existing system. Plan questions and concerns. Discuss construction, wetlands, storm water management on lot three. Discuss letter of map revision or loamer for Patchin' Wilks. Specifically for lots 25 through 32. 25 through 32 are in the rear down here. We have a flood plain area shown on the back portions of these properties. So we're just wanting to know where they are with that. Discuss roadway construction in relation to the flood plain and permitting requirements. They're going to have to cross the flood plain here. So why their construction of the road to the roundabout? Our provisions for maintenance of the private street defined as maintenance of onsite storm water management defined as the embankment of the existing pond discharge pipe and inspect it. There's a no rise study required. Subdivision committee recommended approval with the following sign offs. Engineering, traffic, landscaping, addressing, urban forestry, department of environmental quality, bike and pedestrian, open space, document the division of water qualities, approval of cap. Provided the planning commission grants the waiver for the cross sections and correct all note deficiencies as listed as required not met. Here's the property here. And we're looking at this area as far as being developed on the aerial. So as we stated that there is a request for a waiver. It's for the street cross sections. They're asking for, go back to the, on the preliminary subdivision plan previous before they come into this. We had approved a certain street cross section in 2003 and 2004. And they asked for that to be extended on the previous plan with this area here. Now they're coming back to have that design for the street cross section to be extended just a little further through here towards the cul-de-sac. So they're wanting to ask for the change of the geometrics for that portion of the street to match what was previously approved and built on the first part of the section. Then they're coming in with a waiver for the private street. This being a private street through the middle here and they're asking for change of the geometrics on the street cross section for this also. To be able to change the, change how they lay out the curb, the sidewalk, and the setback for the homes. Allowing them to adjust it to be able to create a larger area for development, bringing the homes up closer. With that, the staff has recommended approval with the requested waiver. And here we go. For Article 6-81 and Exhibits 6-1 and 6-3, granting the requested waiver for the street geometrics will not adversely affect the public health and welfare safety in compliance with the intent of the land subdivision regulation. As the revised geometrics maintain appropriate and safe drive lanes, it also continues a previously approved cross section, as I said. The granting of the waiver consists with the intent of Article 1-5B, the land subregs, for design innovation and large scale development. As the street has been developed as part of the overall design for the existing residential area. With this recommendation, subject to an additional requirement that additional note from Article 5-4 H1 of land subdivision regulations is added to the record plat for the maintenance of the private street. Because it'll be different from the public street that we typically see and therefore we don't believe that it'll ever be transferred over to the city. So we want to make sure that it's noted that who's going to be maintaining that road. Okay, thank you Cheryl. Do we have any questions for Cheryl on either the development plan or the waiver? Yes sir, Mr. Wilson. One quick question, clarification. Is the applicant asking for one waiver or two? It's two waivers. Two what? One for Patchen Wilkes and then one for the unnamed street. It's all wrapped into one, but they're two different streets, subject to changes. Cheryl, this may be a question for the applicant, but I seem to remember at the zone change when we discussed this property, there was discussion about a neckline cemetery. Is there one? I'm not seeing one on the plan here. Maybe the applicant can speak further to that. They might be able to answer that question. I'm not seeing anything. Thank you. If we don't have any other questions for Cheryl. Yes, Robert. Yes, you brought up the floodplain along that row of properties. And I see it's also denoted that it's got a pretty sizable tree canopy along there as well. I know our comprehensive plan speaks to greenways along waterways. I'm not sure. And I guess I just wonder. I mean, I see they're preserving some space around the pond where it's been dammed. But I guess I just wondered what if you – I know in our new expansion area it's articulated more, these sort of natural areas. In this area, is it articulated at all how the plan should interact with these areas? I'm not quite sure. I don't know that it was ever part of the overall development to have a greenway in this area. Unless it's in the comprehensive plan or an associated – like other adopted plan related to greenways, it's probably not designated as a specific greenway. I don't know if the floodplain that cuts across on this plan to the right-hand side may be designated a greenway. But I don't think from the pond on the bottom here that that was designated as a greenway. Do you know? They have floodplain along this area, and then it continues wrapping around towards this part to the lake. Mr. McClure, you're right that since 1996, our plans have been more specific about designating kind of a protection area around the existing floodplains. Those are not really embedded in our zoning ordinance for kind of pre-1996 areas. But there is a text amendment in the works for Article 19 that may be trying to incorporate some of those. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Okay, if we have nothing else for Cheryl, thank you very much. Mr. Griffiths? Good afternoon here. On behalf of the applicant, first off, Cheryl, thank you. And we're in agreement with the Requirement A as to the waiver request, which is why we're here today. I can answer some of the other topics that came up. As to the floodplain area, right now we are currently doing a tree inventory map and working with Tim Query and Eric. And so the trees within that floodplain are going to continue. And so this area here is the floodplain. So the idea is essentially the waterway is going to be a backyard feature on these properties. If you've been down Zandell and seen the houses, Zandell and Lansdowne area, there are some houses that have creeks that run behind them. This would be very similar. I have a property off of Southend Drive that has that where my tenants essentially have a fire pit and they hang out by the creek. And so it will be an amenity. There won't be any construction going on in that area. And then as to the roadway where it crosses the creek, right now the plan is to construct a culvert over it, similar to what otherwise exists in Patchen Wilks, so that we don't have to actually disturb the creek banks. And so there should not be any work within the floodplain area. And then we'll be going through, of course, getting the CLOMER, getting Division of Water Quality, working with the Division of Engineering to make sure all the permits and the setbacks and everything are in place as to the floodplain. But that's not really why we're here today. Today we're just here asking for the waiver. Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Gross? I do. Yes, sir, Mr. Pan. Mr. Gross, will they be allowed to put a fence behind their house in the floodplain? No. Okay. Tracy's telling me no. You're not allowed to put a fence in there. I just want it on the record. Yeah. Okay. Do we have any other questions? Mr. Gross, are you aware of an equine cemetery on that farm? Oh, no, I'm not aware of a cemetery in this area. I am not. Okay. I asked EA partners who is here in the back, and they were not either, our engineers. Okay. If we have no other questions for Mr. Gross, thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. Thank you, Brandon. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this plan or waiver today? All right. Do we have any commissioner comment or questions? The floor is open for two motions, I suppose. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN MJSUB 26-2 Patchin Wilkes Unit 3 with the 11 conditions requested by staff. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Wirth. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Mr. Penn, thank you. Any discussion? If not, we will. Yes, sir, Mr. McAvoy. I'll just make a comment. You know, having sort of seen the property delivered flowers on the property, this project here on such sort of a historic horse farm could have been a lot better. And it's a shame. Just facing all the backyards of all the lots to that sort of historic house with those, you know, that sort of long road and mature trees leading up to it, that could have been a feature of a really neat sort of new neighborhood. And what we're seeing is just a typical development with some green space preserved. But I think we missed an opportunity here. I'm sorry to see it. Yes, sir, Mr. Penn. I went out there yesterday to look at this because I hadn't been on that farm since they started developing that part of it. I didn't ask this question, but it came in my mind that that's not just a pond. That's a pretty good size. I would call it a small lake. Who's responsible for the dam and for the overflow pipes? Is there a neighborhood association that's responsible for that? At this time, I'm not aware of exactly the total inner workings between the existing HOA, the townhome HOA, but I know we do not have an existing HOA, and the lake is located on the subject property we're talking about today. Right now, I believe the owners maintain the dam, and they send, my understanding, the underwater filter, so scuba divers go in there and clean it out. And so at the end of the day, that will be maintained by an HOA organization. I'm not certain the scope of who all will participate, but my understanding is that will not be one property owner's responsibility. It will be part of a maintenance. Well, the biggest fear is the height of the dam and muskrats, and so somebody has to keep an eye on that or you're going to have a problem down the road, and I don't know whose responsibility it is. It doesn't make any difference. Just I want this to be on the record that that's not just a small pond. It takes care of runoff. Yeah. My understanding is right now is the owner group is taking care of that, and I was out there earlier today. I did not see any muskrats. Well, I didn't see any muskrats either. I'm not saying there are. I'm just saying that's what you have to watch for. That's right, but I'm pretty sure Barry's is a good shot, and I'll ask him to take care of them if I see one. I don't think Barry's shooting is what's going to take care of muskrats. Thanks. Okay, so we have a motion on the floor that has been seconded. Do we have any further discussion? If not, we will put this to a vote. This is for the plan, for the plat. Oops, let me get that out of here. Okay, that carries unanimously. Now we will move on to the waivers. Okay, I'm not sure I'm going to say this correctly, but I'm sure somebody will correct me if I screw this up. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the waiver PLN-WAB-26-0007 for alternate street cross sections and Exhibits 6-1 and 6-3. Will that get it done with the attached condition? I would think so. Do we have a second to that motion? Mr. Wilson. Okay, thank you. Do we have any discussion? If not, we will put this to a vote. Okay, that carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Thank you, and I hope you guys get out early today to get to Keeneland. Appreciate it. That would be great. Thanks, Brandon. Next item on the agenda is PLN-MJDP-26-9, Pfister property. Good afternoon. Chris Chaney, Planning Staff. This plan we looked at previously. Oh, a little too far ahead. Sorry. There we go. Okay, so we have MJDP-26-9, the Pfister property. A tailored property, and this is located at 150 and 151 Locust Point Way and 114 Mount Tabor Road. The purpose of the plan is to depict the proposed residential commercial buildings, parking, and circulation. This item was continued at the Planning Commission meeting on March 12th, and then applicants submitted a revised plan on March 31st. I'll real quick go through the, just kind of reorient you. This is Mount Tabor Road here, and this is Locust Point Way that currently ends roughly here off of the property. Richmond Road is to plan north, which is roughly northeast, just a little bit. Mount Tabor comes down just a little bit off Richmond Road, and then this property, as you're driving away from Richmond Road, would be on the left. They're proposing three buildings, one here, one here, and a building in the center. They're showing a mixed-use area in the corner of these two buildings, and then this building is residential with the attached clubhouse and pool area, and then we have the associated parking, surface parking, kind of around the middle part of the property. The significant portion of the revision from the last time you saw this is that the applicant has added a cul-de-sac bulb to the end of Locust Point Way, and that took away the need for a waiver for the termination of a public right-of-way. So now they're showing a cul-de-sac bulb and then a connection to the parking there and the parking here. So Locust Point Way will continue on to the property and terminate appropriately now. And with the revisions, you should have a yellow sheet in your packet that's the revised staff report. Under requirements not met, number one, depict internal pedestrian walkways that comply with the zoning ordinance. Number two, add the RLA stamp ISACA name cert number to the tree inventory map. Number three, amend the canopy proposed for the B1 zone to add one more tree. Number four, provide upload of open space exhibit to a cello. Number five, depict all existing and proposed easements. Number six, add public streets to note number four. Number seven, depict roadway improvements that comply with the land subdivision regulations. Number eight, clarify clubhouse use or modify to a principal permitted use in the B1 zone. Number nine, denote consolidation plat will be required prior to applying for building permits. Number 10, remove notes number 13 and 14. Number 11, correct note number eight to remove reference to Georgetown Road Landscape Corridor Ordinance. Number 12, denote clubhouse commercial portion of building three will be open to the public in order to comply with article 8-16 of the zoning ordinance. And then, at this time, there's no waiver required based on the revised plan that they've given us. Under design considerations, CSL comments provided by the Division of Engineering. Question about dumpster location on the property. And then a statement about the existing sewer line. Under plan questions or concerns, what's the radius of the flares on the main entrance? Number two, discuss the stormwater management proposal. Number three, depict easements for stormwater controls. And number four, added after the revision, discuss timing of cul-de-sac construction. And with that, we recommend approval with the following six conditions. Design offering, engineering, traffic engineering, urban forest or open space, environmental quality. And then number six, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met. And with that, I'll open it up to you all. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions at this time? Mr. Owens. Thank you. Chris, let me ask this. I'm not sure if it's more appropriate for you or someone else. But this is B1 zoning, correct? I'm sorry. Can you say that? B1 zone? Yes. For the most part. And if my Kentucky math is correct, it seems like almost 70,000 square feet is residential compared to 2,400 square foot for commercial. That's correct. That seems like nothing more than a broom closet and just a place holder as far as commercial. Why wouldn't this have been recommended to go to a residential type zone? I think partly because there's no threshold, like a minimum threshold for the commercial. I can understand that. It's kind of what I thought. But to me it just seems like a gross misuse for the zone, simply put. There needs to be more business there as far as I'm concerned. And literally 2,400 square foot is nothing more than a broom closet for what's being built there. Right. Thank you. Mr. McClure. Just sort of following up on Commissioner Owens' comment, if this was an R4 request, other than that very small two corners of business, what would be the requirements that this would not be meeting? Yeah, we didn't really look at it for R4. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. In the conversations you have with applicants, typically there is a conversation about zone choice. Was there a discussion between an R4 and a B1? Or is it always a reaction to their request for B1? There wasn't a zone change with this. So this is them working within the zone. Got it. Working within the existing zoning regulations that allow for mixed-use buildings. So they were creative. And I remember that now because we saw it before. And I remember that back story now, that this was existing B1. This isn't coming back as a modified B1. And B1 is about two-thirds of the property. So everywhere the buildings are and that U-shaped parking is B1. And then to the right, yes, where the cul-de-sac and extra parking are, is already R4. That is R4. But it's just being proposed as parking? Yeah, accessory to the residential on this side. Okay. All right. My memory has been refreshed on the last hearing. Thanks for the clarification. Mr. Ben. So is that the minimum requirement, 2,400 square feet on that bigger place? There isn't a minimum requirement. There is no minimum. They could have come in with 500 square feet. In theory, yes. It doesn't make sense, but okay. There does have to be a commercial use in each building. They can't have a standalone residential use. So a laundromat or an ice cream store would take care of it? Yeah. It has to be open to the public. I still think that's all for a B1, but okay. Okay. Do we have any other questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, thank you. Chris. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Jihad Hallani. So I guess the major changes is that, as Chris mentioned, is the extension of the road. And in regard to the mixed use, we believe that site will be appropriate for this kind of apartment. And we are showing two kind of mixed use, like two mixed use development. It's going to be like hair salon or nail salon or spa or tanning place. And then the clubhouse is going to be a coffee shop, approximately 500 to 600 square feet. All of these will be open to public. And the back of the property, as mentioned, it is zoned as R4 zone. And given that the multifamily design guidelines, assuming we come for a zone change for R4 zone, it's going to require the parking to be kind of insulated from the main road, which is Mount Tabor Road, and that's the intent. The buildings along Mount Tabor is going to be four-story buildings, and all the parking is going to be hidden in the back. And in regard to difference between B1 and R4 zone, it's one of the requirement is that for B1 zone is required to have 20% canopy, while as for R3, we require 30%. We are proposing here to be 35% of tree canopy and vegetation. And we are in agreement with the staff. And if you have any more questions for me, we'll be glad to answer it. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Yes, sir, Mr. Oates. I'm sorry, I've got to ask. Thank you. And I'm not opposed to residential, but I do love mixed use. Did you ever consider more commercial in this than 2,400, 2,500 square feet? Yes, sir. We look into having more commercial, especially along the front, along Mount Tabor. The applicant did not feel more comfortable to go more square footage, given the fact this is not one of the densest portion of Lexington. And he felt this is more appropriate, this kind of square footage, for that kind of location. It's not like on a first-tier roadway. It's like off Richmond Road. It will be second-tier or third-tier commercial. So we felt this kind of uses are more appropriate for that kind of location. So how many residential units are proposed here? We are proposing 170 units. You don't think the population in that would command some more commercial use than just 2,400 square feet? Well, I'm not saying it does not. I'm saying that's what the owner or the applicant felt comfortable with. If there's a number that makes more sense, definitely we'll look into it. Again, this is preliminary development plan. And then we have to go back and submit the final development plan. But if there's a number that's larger that makes more sense, we're definitely more than happy to look into it. Okay. Thank you, Jihad. Thank you, sir. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? If not, thank you. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this application today or this plan? All right. Do we have any final commissioner questions or comments? The floor is also open for a motion. Mr. McClure. Well, I just have one comment. It seems like this is maybe a comment for further discussion. But in the expansion areas in our business districts, the staff and the consultants introduced the idea of the first floor being retail ready. And it seems like that concept may make sense to broaden in developments like this where there may not be a comfort level or a demand right away. But if we build the first stories as retail ready, then they have that flexibility in the future. Okay. Any other comment? Or the floor is open for a motion. And, again, with the revised recommendation, we no longer need a waiver. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN-MJDP 26-9, Fiscal Property, Taylor Property, with the conditions. I think there are six conditions provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? A second from Commissioner Barksdale. Any discussion? If not, we can take that to a vote. Okay. That carries. Thank you, applicants. Moving on, our agenda. Next item is PLN-MJDP 26-10, Bryant Property. Okay. MJDP 26-10. They brought in a revision, so you'll have a pink sheet also for this one. This is a plan that we originally saw on March 12th and was held over to this meeting. They submitted a revised plan. With the revised plan, they reduced the number of dwelling units, reduced the number of dwelling units, and reduced the number of parking spaces. This is probably the better way to show. The one on top is what we were looking at last month, and the one in the below is what they've done. They revised it with. They have this being Bryant Road. We had a cul-de-sac. This is where they were wanting to ask for a make this a public street. We have a waiver for the sidewalk not being built on both sides of the street. Once you enter into the property, they've changed the location of the clubhouse and the pool. They have now, when you may enter into the property here, up in this area, they had the pool, and then they had the open space up in this area. They have moved that open space all the way to the rear here and kept it there. We have a building on the back side. But when they reconfigured, they took going from three buildings that are on the back side, on the south side of the property, to making it two buildings, which then shortens up from the end of the property, shortens it up a little bit, so that it doesn't go all the way to the end of the property as it did previously. So they have revised creating a better buffer area along the end here. We still have agricultural land to the south, and so they will still need to make sure that they have their zone-to-zone screening because this is B3 zone. We have conditional zoning for a berm and a fence along this portion of the property backing up to Timber Creek. So they are protected on both sides of the property towards these apartments that they are proposing. And as I said, there was a number of sycamores that we talked about last month, and they're protecting those by bringing that open space back here to the back end of the property, and giving it more space as far as being open in the rear. With the revised conditions, the requirement's not met. Addition of building line on lot one to run parallel to the cul-de-sac. We still, this is gonna be proposed to, they're asking for this to be a public street. We need to make sure we have our building line. Addition of all easements, including lot three, which is currently the cul-de-sac is lot three until we have it dedicated. Clarify lighting plan to comply with article 30. Remove addition of access easement to lot one to the purpose of amendment. On the previous plan, we had 100 dwelling units. With the rule with the fire department is if it's 100 or more dwelling units, we have to have a second means of egress out of the property. Since they reduced the number of dwelling units to 96, they no longer need that access point to the rear up here in the north side. So they can remove that part of the purpose of the amendment. Denote the waiver or variance for the cul-de-sac. Provide open space exhibit. Amend tree inventory map to comply with zoning ordinance article 26-4. Provide mitigation measures to be taken. Depict easements for storm water controls. Correct side yard setback line to 25 feet adjacent to the AU, which is this area here. They have it 20 foot. They have it labeled 20 and it should be 25 foot on this side. Denote existing zoning along west-southwest property line. As I said, we have the waiver that I'll talk to in just a second. Design considerations. See all the cell economics from vision engineering. All pedestrian crossings greater than 24 feet shall be raised. Sanitary sewer capacity application to be filed. Sidewalks cannot count towards your vegetated open space. The inlets from the proposed public street are directed through a private property. Where is the storm water management? Plan questions and concerns. Discuss note 10 for the mitigation for the loss of trees. With this, they have revised and protected more trees. Discuss who will own and maintain the storm water management. The berm, the sanitary sewer has been moved out a little bit for the berm to be constructed adjacent to the property for the six foot fence. Final record plat, dedicating the cul-de-sac shall be recorded prior to certification of this. This is a preliminary development plan. They'll have to file a final development plan. But this will need to be done prior to. They'll have to record this as a public street. The staff recommends approval with the following sign offs. Sign offs, engineering, traffic, urban forester, open space, environmental quality. Provided the planning commission grants the waiver 26-2. And then correct all note deficiencies listed. So that shows you that property. This is where we're saying, this is the property that we're discussing. As you can see, Timber Creek here on the top. And then this portion here, this is still agricultural urban. And it goes all the way down here to Bryant Road. So they will have to have zone to zone screening along this portion of the property. This is the trail, Brighton East Trail. Part of the plan over here is to have from the cul-de-sac to have the trail come behind the buildings. And connect up to Brighton East Trail at this place, at this location. As I said, they requested a waiver for construction of a sidewalk on one side of the street. Granting them the waiver, request of the waiver. Release of application responsibility of construction of the sidewalk on both sides of the street. Will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Compliance with the intent from the land subdivision regulations. The applicant has proposed the sidewalk connection to the Brighton Trail along the southwest property boundary. And the cul-de-sac has already been constructed. Granting the waiver is consistent with the intent that article 1-5A of the land subdivision regulations. For exceptional hardship due to the extreme elevations and utilities located on the southwest side of the access easement cul-de-sac. And also to construct the sidewalk, it would encroach into the adjacent property. Where they have a home fairly close to the property line. So therefore, we felt that was the exceptional hardship for that. The conditions for approval, we still like to have bike and ped planner approval of the sidewalk connection from on the property to the trail. And with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you, Cheryl. Do we have any commissioner comments or questions for Cheryl at this time on the development plan or the waiver request? Mr. Owens. Cheryl. Hi. How many units was on the original plan? Residential? 100. 100. Just 100? Just 100. So they dropped it by four? Dropped it by four. Brought it down so that they don't have to have the second access point. Okay. Well, that's fine. I thought there was a little bit more. They also reduced the parking along at the same time. They reduced the parking by four? A little bit more. A little bit more. Okay. Do you know how many? That was going to be my question. 24. I'm sorry. It's on the pink sheet? It's on the pink sheet. It reduced it by 24. It is on the pink sheet. Okay. Thank you. It went from 156 to 132. It's 156 to 132. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions? If not, thank you, Cheryl. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jihad Hallani. After the meeting of last month, we came back and revised this. Cheryl mentioned revised the layout. I know it's not many units. It's four units. But the number of parking spaces reduced by 24 parking spaces. We met with Urban Forester on Wednesday. site, we walk the site, I can identify the area or the trees where we need to be outside of it and that layout reflects exactly the meeting and so we revised the layout, reduced the number of parking spaces, we reduced the amount of impervious area because of reducing parking spaces and the plan also there was discussion about this is B3 zone and in B3 it's required to have 20% canopy, whereas R3 or R4 require 30%, that plan we are proposing to have 38% of 3 canopy and vegetation and the buffer between the property and the single family is going to be a berm with evergreen and fence, it's going to be outside the easement and the sanitary easement, that's the dash line, so this will be outside, this is where you feed the berm basically, it's going to be outside the sanitary sewer easement and if you have any question I'll be glad to answer it. Thank you, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay thank you very much, at this time the Planning Commission will hear any public comment on this particular application, it is the policy of the Planning Commission that each citizen can have three minutes of time and there is no borrowing or lending of time and if you would like to speak we'll just form a queue of two or three people at a time at the podium and just approach and state your name and the Planning Commission will hear your comment. Good afternoon, my name is Greg Lubeck, I live at 1842 Timber Creek Drive, my biggest issues with this plan are the traffic impact study and potential traffic impacts especially on Pleasant Ridge Drive, if any of you have ever driven Pleasant Ridge Drive particularly during a morning, evening or weekend, peak hour, it's feeding time at the zoo, people get confused on which lane they need to be in, there's weaving in and out, turning left off Man o' War, people queue up from the Shell Station, also people have to get around them and you've got a going up the hill, you've got a right turn on to Plot It, you can go past that, then you're forced into a right turn on to Bryant, people don't realize that, they get up toward Bryant, all of a sudden they're swerving over quickly to keep going up Timber Creek, it's feeding time at the zoo basically. You know the traffic study, Plot It Place at Pleasant Ridge when you're coming from back where Starbucks and Chipotle and all that is, yes it's barriered and curbed to only go up Pleasant Ridge, okay, people don't follow the rules, there's people make left turn go straight across McDonald's all the time. You know was that considered in all this? I don't know if anybody actually went out and looked at how people drive that, I mean I know Jahad did his study and put the numbers in the model and in my previous life, some of you know me, models are okay but sometimes you've got to go look and see what's actually happening out there, the model doesn't always tell you that, it doesn't predict how people drive. You know there's new development back on the other part of Bryant Road behind Malone's and Drake's, there's a Chicken Salad Chick, a Nothing Bunk Cake, the Bugsy's Entertainment went in where the motor, Motorsports, was that what it was? Okay that probably generates a lot more trips than the Motorsports business ever did. So I don't know if anybody's looked at this, I hate to use the word holistically because I didn't like it when I worked, but did anybody look at this area say from that end of Bryant Road where the tire discounter is to Man O' War and figure out how all this stuff works? Because I mean I know no single raindrop's responsible for the flood, right? But this is what it is. My last comment is Bryant Road in this section, there's no sidewalk curb and gutter on the west side toward the Liquor Barn and the businesses, I guarantee you with 96 apartments people are going to walk from there to go, I hate to keep pulling Liquor Barn first, but that's where they go. There's already a desired path through the brush down to that parking lot, is any consideration given to that so you don't have to go all the way up the block and back down the block just to get to that stuff? So I think the traffic stuff needs to be looked at a little closer, it's probably not Jihad's responsibility but Urban County Government probably needs to look at it, Traffic Engineering and Engineering need to look at that whole thing, it's kind of a hot mess. So thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, alright. Again, we are going to have an efficient hearing, so please let's be respectful of everyone's time. My name is Eddie Gribbons, I live at 3072 Glenwood Drive and I have since 1995. Mr. Ernie Bryant and his mother both came to me and asked me 30 years ago to please not sign a petition, please don't do anything to change this property, this property has been in my family forever, which I know they sold it so that's neither here nor there. Nobody's ever talked to me, told me anything about this. I have a swimming pool on that property. Ernie Bryant gave me the property. His mother and Marshall Bryant, I couldn't get to them because I just now found out about all this last week, maybe I should be more into the city or what's going on. They're willing to come to court, I'm getting stuff, I'm in the process of getting stuff wrote up for them to sign something, whatever they've got to do in writing to witness, they witnessed Ernie give me the property, my swimming pool's on that property. I've got seven grandkids now, I'm 57 years old, they swim every year on that property. That, a lot of people don't know in here, that is a slave graveyard. You can ask them, there is tombstones beside my house, there is a vacant lot beside my house that has six or seven tombstones. The house next to mine, 3768, has a coffin in their backyard, it sticks up almost a foot now. That's sacrilegious, they've already, somebody's already, y'all already let ball homes build houses on top of graves. This ain't no if, ands, or buts, y'all can come to my house, I'll show them to you today. Where my pool is at, the only reason they let me put my pool back there, because Ernie, Mrs. Bryant, whose property it was, said there's graves back there. I don't want to sell the land, I don't want them to disturb the graves. So just bottom line, this property they're talking about building on is a graveyard. And Marshall Bryant and his mother, and I know it doesn't look good to get on the phone, but I'm in talks with a lawyer, and they're willing to come down and testify, the whole nine yards, they know there's graves out there. When they built Monkey Joe's and all that, when they tore that hill down back there, they found stuff, and then the city, whoever, I can't prove it. They shut it all down real quick, then they let Monkey Joe's and all that property be built there. The Bryant's graveyard is right behind the Marriott Courtyard there, and they said from that graveyard to the end of the fence line, which would be that walkway, that pathway, they said there's graves from one end to the other. So I am going to contact the NAACP, because I want them to know, too, what's going on, because I never knew nothing about this. Thank you. I've been standing for that now, man, taking that property for 30 years, that's my property. Thank you. Do we have any other public comment? Yes. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Haley Lee, and I live on Glenwood Drive near the proposed property. I'm actually neighbors with this gentleman right here. I'm here as a nearby resident along with some of the neighbors who have been actively following this proposal. I'd like to briefly speak on how this project aligns with the Lexington-Fayette General Plan. First, neighborhood compatibility. The surrounding area is made up of single-family homes, and the proposed multi-story higher density development represents a significant change in scale and intensity. Second, the traffic and safety. The proposal includes a single access point onto Bryant Road in an area that already experiences congestion. These concerns about increased traffic delays and overall safety, especially during peak hours. Additionally, while a full traffic impact study was not required, the development submitted a review. This raises questions about whether the level of the analysis fully reflects current and future traffic conditions. Third, is the zoning and the land use. The property is currently zoned for B3, which is generally intended for corridor business uses. This proposal is residential in nature and is being considered under a conditional use. I respectfully ask for clarification on how this meets the criteria required under the zoning ordinance and how compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood is being evaluated. Finally, regarding the environmental considerations, the current plan shows a site with approximately 47% tree canopy, including mature trees that provide natural buffering and character. While this replacement landscaping and structural buffers are proposed, these do not replicate the environmental or visual benefit of an established canopy. This represents a significant and lasting change to the site and surrounding neighborhood. In closing, we are asking for a careful consideration of the proposal aligned with the LP, GMP, the zoning intent, and the existing neighborhood. These decisions have long-term impacts and we want to ensure that they are made with full consideration of the community they affect. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Do we have any other public comment? Hello, my name is Sage Kitchen. I live at 3260 Brighton Place Drive. I spoke last month as well. I just wanted to, first I want to acknowledge that the plan did change slightly. And so they are proposing to save more of the significant trees than they were in the original plan. But I would like to point out that the density is still fairly high. As Commissioner Owens pointed out, they only reduced that by four units. You know, one of my original concerns was that this was a very strange design for this area. It's in between two residential neighborhoods that are very well established. And we're talking about putting still three-story apartment buildings right up in the center of the land. You've all seen pictures of the land. It's a very tight, small kind of slice of land. So I would still say that it's a very high density and it doesn't really fit into the feel of the neighborhood. I know Commissioner Davis, who's not here today, and Mickler both have commented on doing things a little more creatively. And, you know, this is an opportunity where you could do that, especially on such a small piece of land. And they have made some changes. But I would just say that there's room for a lot more creativity to be involved here and have some more changes. Because this is a very special plot of land that exists. And so that's basically just reiterating what I said last month. So thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Hello. My name is Denise Inlow and I have spoken at the last three of these meetings in opposition of this proposal. And again today I'm back to oppose it again. I have read the comprehensive plan for 2045, all 360 whatever pages of it. And I understand your directive and your job is to have growth in these sparse green areas within the city limits. I get it. I actually like the plan. I'm actually for the plan. The accountability for affordable housing I think is very important. I'm not sure that our spot is where that needs to go. As you know, rent for apartments is actually more than what I pay for my house payments. So we need to look at affordable housing in another way. I'm so glad that Patchen-Wiltz went before us. I think that Robin had a very good point in saying we missed it. And I hate that we missed it with the big house and the trees and the land. I've said in these meetings and this is probably going to make you all mad and that's okay. I've said in these meetings and I've watched these votes and they're just so quickly done without any thought. And I have implored you all the last couple of meetings to please come out and I will meet you at this and we can walk through and show you this. The traffic, while I appreciate Jihad's incentive and work you put on the traffic plan, I think that's a conflict of interest for the developer to do our traffic safety plan. I just really do. I think it needs to be a third party. If our city is not going to do it, then it needs to be a third party person. I just think we need to think about slow, controlled, purposeful growth that enhances our environment, not takes away from it. I worry about the safety of that many people crammed in that kind of area. I think the engineers, not just you all, but all engineers need to think outside the box. Not every development needs to be rectangles and squares and put in an area. I think we have to think about keeping the characteristic of the neighborhood in the way that it is. I'm curious about who's going to maintain the green area, Jihad, that's been, that you've proposed to be enlargement? The developer. The developer would maintain that? Okay, thank you. I think the fact that the graveyard is an issue. We brought that up two meetings ago. I'm concerned that there is a graveyard back there. I did find the one graveyard that's maintained with a wall behind the Marriott, but wasn't able to get on the property to look. That wasn't my place to do that, but I would like for somebody to do some research on that. I think that's very important that we maintain that if that's the case. I also want to say quickly in closing that while our jobs is growth and development, I don't think that we as a committee should take every development that is proposed to us and pass it. I think it may take the third or fourth or fifth person's plan to pass. Not all developments are going to fit in that place the first time through. Thank you for your time. I appreciate you. Thank you. All right, is there anyone else that would like to speak on this application or this plan today? My name is Melanie Buttery. I live at 3089 Glenwood Drive, which is on the back of this property. It looks like a very nice property development, but my main concern is the traffic, like the first gentleman talked about. I would like to know, or if any of you live in the Hamburg area, where we're talking about. Going up from Man o' War on up Pleasant Ridge, you've got very congested buildings, hotels. You put in a new hotel there. If you've been on Bryant Road, it's not bigger than that first panel there. You can't even get two cars down it. So I don't know as a taxpayer who's paying for that road. You're going to have to widen it. I haven't heard one thing about how they're going to get out of this property and onto Pleasant Ridge to try to make a left to get on to probably Man o' War to go to work or come home. I mean, I work in downtown. In the mornings, early, 6.30, I can get downtown, 5, 10 minutes. Coming home, 40 minutes because of all the traffic in that area. Hamburg has been, like I said, I don't know if any of y'all live out there, but you really should know, if you do, you should know what the traffic is right there in that short area. I would like to know, this property that's being built, it's probably not even a football field down to Pleasant Ridge. So if you've got 100 people trying to get out right there on not even a two-lane road. So I haven't heard one thing about that. Have you all discussed that? That's one of my questions. Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, no. This is your opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission. Okay, so I can't ask questions? We listen. Okay, so you're listening. So there's no, you haven't been able to find out if you have, even if the Bryant Road is in this? This is the Planning Commission's opportunity to listen. Okay, so are you voting on this proposal today? Possibly. Possibly, okay. So that's my question. It looks like everything I've read, you haven't even talked about Bryant Road. So, thank you. Thank you. All right, is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak? Ten years. My name is Beth Hollis. I'm a transplant from Denver, and I watched what Denver did to its suburbs over 40 years. I totally agree with Greg Lubeck. I live on Timber Creek. I totally agree with Melanie Buttery. Bryant Road is a one and a half lane, poorly developed road. We're looking at at least 96 cars, but 30% more of apartment dwellers will have more than one vehicle. We don't have any provision for that. The quality of life in Hamburger is one of the reasons why I relocated. And yes, Greg's absolutely right. It's a feeding frenzy at the zoo, getting out from the amazing congestion at Sir Barton. I'm still learning the roads here. Pleasant Ridge and Man o' War all meet. And then you've got a ton of restaurants that are the only exit off of I-6475. It's a big one that everybody wants to go to Chick-fil-A. Everybody wants to go to Qdoba. Everybody wants to go to McDonald's. No one turns the way they're supposed to turn. Sit there for a couple of hours. You're going to see the left hands going where it says, right turn only. Reading is a big skill that several people miss, I think. I'm also concerned about the quality of life. We're looking at a three story apartment building complex. I had no idea when I was asked to come here today that it was going to be three stories. That's our view. Because we all live in ranch style homes. A couple of them have a little bit more trees. That's our view. We're going to be looking out on apartment dwellers. And typically the average apartment person stays one, maybe two years. So the turnover is great. We have already, if you look at next door in the Hamburg area, we have a lot of foot traffic vandalism that goes unreported. There's not enough police to police the area. And typically, not always, but typically higher density housing will also improve that ratio of more crime, not less. I'm living in my forever home. We're retiring. And I don't want to see the value detracted at all, since that is my retirement. And with the large density, and everybody's spoken to it, if you don't live there, you don't know. And it's nice to maybe not live there, as far as thinking that the traffic flows beautifully. But we funnel down a lot of lanes into two with, hello, Malone's, Drake's, Happy Hour. It's amazing people have not been killed on that road. I'm also concerned about the school impact. We've already got a little bit of overcrowding at Liberty. And I'm also concerned very much about the community, just in general. I lived here now for eight years. I know my neighbors. There's a community feel in our neighborhood that could be absolutely decimated by more transient type people. So I just wanted to say thank you. And I please hope that you do more work on the planning. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the planning commission today? Okay. Thank you all for public comment. And regardless of what happens today, I can assure you that the planning commission does listen and it is impactful. And it does make us think even more critically about every single application. Does the applicant have anything in response? A couple of things. First, I just want to say I have a lot of respect and admiration for Mr. Lubeck as an engineer and also as a person. But on this subject matter, so the property is on B3. And it can be, next to it can be another hotel. It can be two hotels. It can be any other use that's going to be more intrusive to the neighborhood. Having this apartment is going to act like kind of transition from single family to basically to the commercial. And all the traffic generated from this site is going to be on Bryan Road. And the number of users going to be on Bryan Road is going to be very limited. Basically, I would say no more than five, six, other than value city furniture, the vacant lot next to it, and then that development and the hotel, and there's a large industrial building next door. And having the traffic on Pleasant Ridge and Bryan Road, I believe this is more like a global problem than the city need to address, more than the developer able to address. The property is zoned as B3. It's underutilized property, has been in zone for a long time. And definitely it's one of the most underutilized property within the city limit of Lexington. And we believe with this revised layout and protecting as much tree as possible within the site, moving the building away from the residential people backyard, we feel like this is an appropriate layout and appropriate use for that site. Okay. I am sure we'll have questions. Mr. McClure. The staff's going to... Yeah, they've got a choice. Does the staff have anything to add? I think at subdivision committee, David Villiatru provided some information that might be helpful for the rest of the planning commission that isn't part of the subdivision committee related to the intersection of Bryant and Pleasant Ridge. David Villiatru, Traffic Engineering. So yes, as part of the street committee, the city council had over the last year, they put together funding for traffic studies at five intersections across the city. The idea is that there will be a roundabout conversion study, but we're looking at operational just in general to determine the impacts. But one of those intersections was Bryant Road and Pleasant Ridge. So Palmer Engineering is the engineering firm that's working on it. They're already started. They're getting a LIDAR survey. They're getting traffic counts. They're going to look at collision analysis, things like that. So we're already in process of looking at this intersection in this area of the corridor. So I just want to let you guys know. Yes. We probably have questions. Commission. Sure. Sure. I'd just like to say after our last hearing, I went out there and I sat at Bryant Road and I drove all those other roads around in through there. And some of it was at peak traffic time. Some of it was a little bit after. But I would encourage you to do a study that goes beyond traffic counts, that looks at driver behavior, that looks at all the things that can be done, irrespective of what happens here today. It's a mess. Absolutely. And that's the idea. It's not just a traffic count and we just post the numbers on somewhere. It's going to be a full-fledged study. We're actually designing something at the end. We're hoping to build something that impacts. So definitely. Okay. Mr. McClure, do you have a question for Dave? I do. I mean, just sort of following up on, and this intersects with you and with zoning, but Bryant Road doesn't look like what we typically see as a B3 corridor. And I guess I'm wondering if there have been discussions on Bryant's sort of cross-section itself. From the development that we have today, the entrance south, it's about 24 feet. So it's more narrow than we typically. But from that point to Breck to Pleasant Ridge, it's a 30-foot cross-section, which is slightly less than what we would see in a typical, not a collector-sized street, but a larger neighborhood street. So there should be enough space for even parking. But 30 feet is plenty for two-way traffic. But these roadways and traffic patterns were laid out quite a bit before my time. So we're kind of dealing with what we have now and then kind of look at, again, the intersections really where we're concerned with as far as how people make it through and around the intersection safely. And that's what the study will primarily focus on. Okay. Any other questions for traffic? Mr. Wilson? Back to the traffic thing just for a minute. Are you in the process or have you completed your study? No, we're in the process. So we were given the funding at fund balance time at the beginning of this year. And so the contract's been signed and Palmer's working on collecting collision or crashing statistics, traffic counts, a LIDAR survey, and then from there we'll go move into the next steps, which is determining the appropriate solution at that intersection and ensuring that it won't impact the adjacent downstream signalized intersection and things like that. All right. Thank you. And the idea is that they'll be done by October of this year. So we'll present to council at that point. And, again, that's not just this intersection. There's four others in town as well. I don't know if this is necessary for traffic, but just has any thought been placed on looking at Bryant Road? I mean, you know, no curbs, no, you know, you know, has any improvements been thought about or considered with the, you know, particularly with the added traffic that will be on Bryant? I guess where I would go initially would be what sort of improvements we would, what would there be to be done, I guess. I don't know. I'm just kind of looking at the picture here. It narrows quite a bit once you get past, what is that, Monkey Joe's and, you know, those. It does appear to narrow because I've always thought that that was kind of the end of Bryant, you know, until, you know, recently. But just wondering, has any consideration been made to? What I'm looking at south of that entrance there where the cul-de-sac comes off, it narrows to 24. But then you only have one property and then you go to the park. You have that parking lot for the Brighton Rail Trail. But, again, from this property back to Pleasant Ridge, it's a 30-foot wide road. Okay, no? Okay, we tried. Sorry, we're on Google Maps trying to orient ourselves and get a feel for this section of Bryant. Yeah, so, should I aim up here, I guess? Did I do it the right way? Nope. So in front of Monkey Joe's, which is this large building, it's also occupied by a flooring gallery and maybe some of Ball Home's offices or design center. Then it becomes the hotel. Those improvements have been made on, north is up on this, so the east, southeast side of the road. They have not been made on the plotted place side of the road. And that was a decision historically by the planning commission to not make those improvements. Bryant pre-existed any of the development in Hamburg. That decision was made because there's a water line and a gas line that runs along the side of the road. And there's also about a six foot topographic change. So moving the water line and the gas line and regrading it was deemed not necessary because all of the plotted place businesses access and are geared towards Man O' War in that vicinity and plotted place. So they didn't make improvements on the rear of their property. As we've seen Bryant Road developed, initially it was supposed to all be industrial as well as the Timber Creek area was all supposed to be an industrial area. We've seen zone changes that have deviated away from that and that changes the traffic patterns. Obviously there's a lot more traffic with the residential neighborhood. There's some limited traffic with the furniture store. That was the first B3 zone change along Bryant. And again because people are not picking up daily items at a furniture store, the planning commission and the council deemed that as an acceptable land use at that location. But that sort of opened the door for other B3 uses on this substandard street which included the hotel. At the time the hotel was rezoned, there wasn't really a hard and fast plan for the remainder of the property. Obviously it doesn't have a lot of visibility for retail uses or restaurants. The staff repeatedly suggested mini warehouses because there's not a lot of activity associated with that. And they tend to be quiet neighbors. Obviously not a three story is uncommon. That was not something that the applicants or the property owners were interested in. And so the B3 remained for this property. And then we had a text amendment that now allows residential, multifamily residential on B3 property. I'm confident that the staff wouldn't recommend B3 along a substandard local street again, given this condition, but it's there today. And so that opens the door for what the allowable uses are in the B3 zone. And a project that meets those regulations being proposed to you today. I think to the cross section question, it does narrow slightly just as you get past the cul-de-sac. Because that next piece has not been rezoned. And so there's no improvements until you get in front of the furniture store again. And then there are improvements. So it is a little hodge podgy. It's not a continuous improvement. And maybe that's something that traffic engineering could look at in terms of making, completing those improvements on that one side. I don't see improvements being made on the plotted place side. So that was a long story. But hopefully it helps kind of provide a better picture for the planning commission. Okay. Mr. Owens. Thank you. Tracy, before you leave, different question. Being a B3 zone, what sort of height restrictions are we talking about as far as the possible B3 development? No, I haven't memorized the new restrictions or the new regulations. Can you all pull it up? Do you think it's- 60 feet. Jihad thinks it's 60 feet. But Chris and Cheryl are going to- More than what we're talking about here. Sorry? More than what we're talking about here. Yes. A three story building is typically not any taller than 40 feet. Thank you. Ms. Wilson. Just for the record, the person from the audience made a claim about grave sites being there. How would you all address that? We did not find any documentation about a family grave site there. But we are aware that there is one here on that, you see in the aerial photograph, a square. And that is a delineation of a family cemetery. That's probably the most information I think we've received about there being multiple graves spread across this area as well as along the back here. If the applicant and property owner find part of a family cemetery, they will need to come back to the planning commission and revamp their development plan. They have two options with a cemetery, a family cemetery or private cemetery. They can maintain it in its existing location and provide a 50 foot buffer around it without changing anything for the cemetery and providing access so family members can come visit. If they choose to move the graves, that is a separate process with the state and a funeral director. And they come and do usually an archaeological evaluation that involves delineating where the graves are and working with family members to provide a re-internment at a cemetery. Can I ask a question about that? Let me put this in some context, all right? I work with a group of people who maintain the entrance and exit gates at African Cemetery number two. We know when the city at one point was approving redevelopment of that property, they thought there were a few graves over there. Later, when they realized it was a cemetery, they thought there were a few hundred graves over there. They've now gone in with LIDAR. They know there are more than 5,000 unmarked graves in that cemetery. So my question to you is, we request a lot of studies. Is it possible for us to request a LIDAR or similar study of this property to see if there are graves there? Yes, I think if there's evidence provided by the neighbors that there's gravestones and what not. I think it would be an excellent idea to ask the property owner to solicit assistance from a archaeological organization to help identify the location of any graves on site, and if there aren't any, it'll be an easy study, right? Okay, Commissioner Jonathan Davis had a question. Yes, thank you. Thank you so much for your time. That added a little bit more color to the conversation. You mentioned that if there's a family grave site and there's documentation and the graves are marked for the process. But the applicant, or I should say the question that the person had was that these graves are formerly enslaved people. There's not a family grave site. There's not going to be documentation. There's going to be just graves there. Is the process different if that's the case, as opposed to it being a quote unquote family grave site with documentation? No, it's just really considered, usually they're associated with a farm, but it would be any burial location needs to be identified on a plan. And then our ordinance allows for the protection of that burial area via demarcation of the edges and then 50 foot setback. It doesn't matter who was buried there. Thank you, Mr. Spoon. Ken, I can mention a site, was it Spring Valley? And we approved the development site and we found a lot more graves than we even knew were there. Are you all aware that those graves are there? If you're not? This is the first time I hear about it, sir. Well, what I don't want to do is get into a situation where you approve a development plan that has completely changed because of the grave site, which is what happened at Spring Valley. Yes, sir. We can add a note if it's okay, saying that we can do archeological study before we go to find a development plan or something like that, or construction plan or whatever the pleasure of the board. I mean, this is very important and we want to take it as serious as possible. Well, it's new information that we need to deal with. And so I don't know how the best way to deal with it up front. And I'm a little leery about approving a development plan that we feel like might have graves on it. And then we have to come back. And so, do we postpone? What do we do until we know what's there and what's not there? That's a good question. Mr. Wilson? Well- Pardon, ma'am, not just one moment. As it relates to, we had this similar type of conversation in Frankfort, Kentucky, at what they call Spaghetti Junction there, when Main Street runs into the sales road thing. They had the technology that they could do this without having any major difficulty. In other words, they were able to identify every grave that was there. So my question is, why would we not do that? We can request it. I said, what you're hearing is famous, Wade, right? We can request that. Okay, good, thank you. We'll be glad to add a note in that regard. I mean, we'll be happy to add whatever you guys, about that note. So part of the application, when they make their application through our online system, there are a series of questions that applicants answer. And one of those is, is there, are there any burial, is there a burial ground on the property? It's our assumption as the staff members that the professional, design professional that's submitting the application has visited the site and gathered information about the site before they make their application. So that they can, with full confidence, answer those questions. So if they answered no, that's, I think, a little concerning. And I would, I guess, prefer for the planning commission to have that information before they make a decision, as opposed to after. Here's just a clarification question for Jihad. What is your awareness or understanding of the neighboring property owner with the swimming pool? I'm sorry, sir? What is your understanding of the neighboring property owner having a pool, what looks like an above ground pool on this site presently? When we did the site visit, to be honest with you, I don't recall seeing above pool at the property. But if it's shown on the area map, definitely it's theirs then. Are you aware of any litigation or pending litigation? I'm sorry, sir, there's no litigation on this property. Do we, pardon me, do we have any additional commissioner comment or question for either applicant or staff? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. I wondered if it would be appropriate to offer a motion of postponement until we got the information before we vote on anything else. We can certainly entertain a motion of postponement. Personally, I have a lot more questions than answers on several fronts on this plan, so. Well, it's a whole lot easier to fix a problem than it is to come back afterwards and try to fix a problem. We know we've got a problem, I, for one, can't vote for this right now. All right, well, again, floor's open for a motion if that's the route we'd like to go today. You might need to note the date on here. I mean, I know this problem has come up today, but the date on here that you all need to act by is today. So, unless the applicant is agreeable to a postponement, you're going to have to word it in such a way that it's a condition or something. And if it is a condition, and they find something, they're going to have to come back to you anyway. Yes, we are in agreement, sir. I'm sorry? Yeah, we are in agreement to postpone it until next meeting. Okay. Thank you. You might want to continue, since you've had a whole hearing about it, until the, I don't know, are you talking about a month or? Yeah, a month. A month, okay. 30. So, one month, do you have? It's a 30 day. Yes, so that would be the May 14th? May 14th, yes, sir. Subdivision? Can you have answers at that quickly? Yeah, we're going to do our best. If we cannot, we can request postponement. Okay, yeah, all right. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. Well, if you're ready for a motion, make a motion to, should it be continue as opposed to postpone? Continue. Then I move that we continue PLN-MJDP 26-10 Bryant Properties for 30 days. In order to? In order to assess the grave sites and graveyard issues that we've raised here. All right, thank you, Mr. Wilson. And second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis, any discussion to the motion of continuance? Seeing none, the Planning Commission will vote on that. Okay, are you in the affirmative, Mr. Penn? Yes. Okay, okay, okay, so that carries unanimously, so we'll hear from you soon, thank you. Okay. Okay, moving along. All right, Chris, hold on just one second. Okay, yep. If you are not here to hear this next application, if you would just please exit the room as quietly as you can so that we can proceed with the hearing. Okay, Chris. All right, the next plan, we're looking at page six of the agenda. This is PLN-MJDP 2619, the Maxwell-Lindhurst subdivision. And the associated waiver, PLN-WAV 26-5. We've looked at this before. The purpose of this development plan is to request a waiver to eliminate the sidewalk along the north side of Hagerman Court and add a pergola to rooftop patio above a three story portion of the structure. So if you remember, I think maybe it was last year we looked at this. This is East Maxwell along the long plane of this building. I'm sorry, I'm going to forget here. Is this Stone and Lexington Avenue? And then Hagerman Court, the existing Hagerman Court comes down and it jogged over and went through the property. The applicants are in the process of having that right of way released through this portion. They've dedicated this portion, and I believe the roadway is constructed at this time. So the purpose of this plan, part of it is to allow for this pergola. Let me go back. So this portion of the building was approved with renderings that showed a three story structure on the corner of Lexington and East Maxwell. The applicant desires to put a pergola on top of the rooftop patio that was approved as part of that earlier development plan. And so that's part of this request, is to amend this plan to include the pergola, which adds some height to the structure. And is a little bit different than those renderings that you saw in that zone change in those previous development plans. So they're asking to allow for the pergola in that location. And then what they're asking, the previous development plan showed a sidewalk along the building on the southwest side of Hagerman Court. And a sidewalk along the north side of Hagerman Court on this new portion that goes out to Stone Avenue. So this is a close up Stone Avenue being, this is where Hagerman Court intersects Stone Avenue now. So this is the sidewalk along Stone Avenue. This is the existing Hagerman Court, where it comes in. And so then this is the new portion of Hagerman. And what they're asking is to not construct a sidewalk along this portion of Hagerman. There is an existing retaining wall. I believe it's a new retaining wall. Yeah, and so this cross section shows what they're proposing. So there's 24 feet of pavement for the roadway, a five foot sidewalk. And then on the other side there's five feet, and then a variable height retaining wall. It's a little bit taller at this end, and I think it pretty much goes away by the time you get to Stone Avenue. So Hagerman Court, going this direction, loses elevation. I have some photos I'll show you here in a minute. Well, actually we'll go ahead and show those. So this is looking out towards, Stone Avenue is here. So this is looking along the northwest side of Hagerman Court where they're asking to not place a sidewalk. So this is the retaining wall in question that goes along this roughly five foot strip. So this is looking back the other direction from about that location, about where the retaining wall is looking back toward the old portion of Hagerman Court here. So it's kind of showing the current condition now after the construction of the new portion of Hagerman Court. Let me go back to the plan really quick, just make sure I'm not leaving anything out. So we have the request to allow the additional height of the pergola on top of the third story. And then the waiver request is specifically for the waiver of the land subregs for the requirement of the sidewalk on both sides. So with the plan itself, in your agenda you'll see the staff report under requirements not met. Number one, it's the standard building inspection note needs to be added. Number two, correct the commission certification. And number three, to correct the vicinity map to reflect the current lot configuration. They've consolidated the multiple lots for the larger parcel and the vicinity map doesn't reflect that. So we just ask them to change that. The waiver request is for the sidewalk requirements. Under design considerations, the bicycle pedestrian coordinator said the sidewalk should be built in the five feet of space provided. I think, and we have traffic engineering here as well. Our other staff's opinion is that the sidewalk should be built. And I'll get to that when I get into the waiver report itself. Under plan questions and concerns, number one, confirm that trash and recycle compactors will be used, and we have confirmed that. Number two, is asking about the status of the release of the Hagerman Court right away. And again, that's in process, and the applicant can probably speak to that a little bit more in detail if you have questions about that. And then finally, we recommend approval of the development plan subject to the following sign-offs and conditions. Sign-offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, waste management, division water qualities, approval of the cap requirements, the postal service. And then number 12, provided that the planning commission grants the waiver to eliminate the sidewalk along the north side of Hagerman Court. And finally, number 13, to correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And if you don't have questions specific to the development plan, I can go on to the waiver report. Do we have any questions specific to the development plan? Well, to the development plan and the photographs? Yes. Can you do the photographs? And Mr. Filiatrao, I'm going to put you on the spot here, if I can. It seems to me at subdivision committee, we talked about what that sidewalk would look like if it were built on the side that's requesting the waiver. And I can't remember if you showed me a rendering or if you just walked us through. But that black line that's in the picture on the right, is that where the sidewalk would- I think that's what Matt, right? Matt showed that. You basically indicated that. Yeah, and I've got a picture of it. You're going to show us that? Come up here. We're not coming. Oh, okay. Okay, then I'll hold it until- Okay. Okay, do we have any other questions on the development plan? Mr. McClure. Just to clarify, this is already well under construction, correct? Correct. And currently, the construction is according to what was already approved. So the retaining wall allows room for the sidewalk. Correct. There is room. They've basically, it looks like from that picture, the only thing they have left to do is basically pave it. The spot has already been made for it. As far as I understand, the applicant can probably answer that a little better than I can. So if they don't pave it, they have a five-foot gap between the curb and the retaining wall. Correct. Okay, thanks for the clarification. I think this goes to what we'll see next. As you go toward the cross street, that sidewalk bumps up right to the corner of the house with gas meters, if you look at the other picture. So I'm raising a flag about that right now. The light in the photo is a little harsh, but yeah, there's meters there, and it is a little bit tighter along the existing house. So, sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. Is the house in the photograph on the right, is that still standing? I thought that thing... Yeah, it's the house on the left that's the problem. Okay, I see. It's the same house, it's just from a different vantage point. Okay, I'm sorry, it's confusing. Yeah, that house faces Hagerman Court, so it's historically... I was thinking I was looking down Hagerman, and that was the house on the right that was demolished. So, okay, thank you for that clarification. Do we have any other questions on the development plan? Okay. Thank you, Chris. And now, we have a waiver associated with this, right? Yeah. So, you should have a waiver report in your packet. The applicant's requesting a waiver to the Land Subdivision Regulations, specifically Article 6-8N1, regarding the requirement that conventional pedestrian sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all roadways. The applicant is requesting the waiver under Article 1-5, Exceptional Hardship. And this is specifically for the new construction portion of the road. This is all being done in conjunction with the redevelopment of the larger site to the southwest for the multifamily structure. And Hagerman Court's been rerouted to connect up Stone Avenue and provide access for that multifamily structure, which is going to generate quite a bit of pedestrian activity in that area. We're fairly certain that that's going to happen. The historic portion of Hagerman Court Let me see. Let me go back. So, the historic portion of Hagerman Court, what will remain here, was one way from High Street to Maxwell and had no sidewalks. The new section of Hagerman Court is two-way from Stone Avenue to the curve in Hagerman Court to allow vehicle and pedestrian access to the multifamily structures into your parking garage. So, you can see there's an access point here into the garage. So, this would be two-way vehicular access and pedestrian access to get into the structure. And this is the only entrance into the structure for vehicles to get into the parking structure internally. And then the historic portion of Hagerman Court is one way coming southwest. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the requirement that sidewalks must be constructed on both sides of public streets in order to be permitted to construct a sidewalk along the south side of Hagerman Court only and no sidewalk along the north side. commission on January 16th, 2025 for an alternate cross section to allow a 34-foot width where 54 feet is standard for new local streets. And that was under Article 6-8A. In the request for the previous waiver, the applicant's design professional stated, the 34-foot proposed right-of-way will provide site access, a community safety benefit, and provide road and pedestrian improvements. Continuing, they state, the new pavement section will be constructed to a local public street standard. This waiver will not cause detriment to the public good and will not impair the purpose and basic objectives of the subdivision regulations, the general development of the area, or create safety or traffic concerns. So in the previous waiver request, they stated that if that was granted for an alternate cross section, there would still be pedestrian and vehicular access that was adequate for the use. The stated hardship with this waiver request is that Hagerman Court has no sidewalks to tie into as it is in an alley with a very narrow right-of-way. And just for clarification, Hagerman Court is not classified as an alley and the existing street cross section is comparable with a continuing local cross section without sidewalks. As if it had no sidewalks, I should say. While there are no sidewalks adjacent to the existing portion of Hagerman Court, the applicant's development will generate more pedestrian activity along the new portion of Hagerman Court. And as the immediate area redevelops in the future, sidewalks can be added along the older part of Hagerman Court. If this waiver is granted, it is likely that the missing sidewalk along the north side of Hagerman Court will become the gap in the pedestrian network. The applicant also states in the request letter that due to the recently constructed retaining wall along the north side of Hagerman Court, the sidewalk loses some of its functional width and becomes less usable compared to normal sidewalk conditions. There is no continuity with the walk when it has no place to go. But they don't provide any evidence to support that and we also know that if we build a sidewalk and then another sidewalk comes in later, we're adding to the connectivity, not taking away from it. So therefore, it's our recommendation that the waiver to eliminate the sidewalk along the north side of Hagerman Court be disapproved. Under that, for the following reasons, number one, granting the requested waiver to the requirement for sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of public streets will adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety and compliance with the intent of the land subdivision regulations. By granting this waiver, there is the strong possibility that this section of missing sidewalk will become the gap in the pedestrian network and negatively impact pedestrian movement. Number two, granting the waiver is not consistent with the intent of Article 1-5A of the land subdivision regulations for exceptional hardship as there is adequate space to construct a compliant sidewalk and there are no topographical or other obstacles to prevent the construction of a fully functioning pedestrian facility on the north side of Hagerman Court. And again, it is constrained, it's very tight, but it appears as if there's enough space for a sidewalk in that location. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any further questions? Okay. At this time, we can hear from Mr. Carter. Thank you. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. First, I'm going to hand out some of my own photos and some exhibits that I made myself and I think they'll be helpful to you guys. Matt, before you start, just one, again, clarification question. This retaining wall in this photograph, is that on the subject property or is that on a neighbor? No. The wall is north of the subject property is basically the south side of that. So in that photo on the right is the subject property. On the north, which is the left in that photo where the wall is, not our property. That's a neighboring property. Okay. Thank you. Okay. See, that's what, you don't see it in here, but this is what he showed us. Okay. So at the subdivision committee, I did not have the artist's rendering yet. So I wanted to present this to you guys. So I've got it on the screen and I wanted you all to be able to see it up close. So I gave you, that's why I handed you the prints. But you can see above the three-story section, you can see the actual outline of the pergola. So that would be, these would be columns here and the roof of the pergola. And so what the pergola would consist of is, it's basically an open structure where light can go through it, but at different angles, the sun, it'll provide shade. Okay. Can you do the next pergola too? And the height of the pergola in that, above the parapet wall, is 5.6 feet. That'll be up above where, you know, that's the part you'll see. And this illustrates that the deck on the roof of the third floor, it's an open patio area with seating. And then I've kind of highlighted in yellow here, that's the actual pergola. So this would be East Maxwell Street. So from the front of the building, that's what you would see. So as far as the development plan goes, we're in agreement with the conditions on the development plan. What I want to talk about now is the waiver. Can you go to Exhibit 3? Okay so, what we have here, we've got Hagerman Court in red. This is the area where the sidewalk is supposed to go, and we don't want to build it. Right here you see the existing wall that's built. And then the house, I think it's 126 Hagerman. Here's the house that would front on the sidewalk. The house in the middle, it has kind of a bay window. It's not a bay window, the actual whole house juts out. This corner right here is actually 5 feet from the face of curb. It sits exactly on the right-of-way line. That sidewalk is going to back up to- Matt, just to make sure people understand, you've mislabeled Stone Avenue. Would you just clarify that please? Oh, okay. Forgot to edit that one. Stone Avenue here, Hagerman Court, and Hagerman Court. This is the new part of Hagerman Court that was built, and I apologize, that should be Stone Avenue. So the house, this corner, from the corner to the face of curb, 6 feet. This corner, face of curb to the corner of the house, 7 feet. And then where the house juts out, it backs up, the house backs up. It would actually be touching the sidewalk. And then on the house, they've actually built a seat out there out of wood for people to actually can go sit on it, and I guess put their feet in the grass. Okay, now will you go to Exhibit 1? Okay, so what this is, it's a section through Hagerman Court that you all saw on the development plan that Chris previously showed. But what I wanted to clarify is where it was labeled 5 feet from face of curb to back of walk, and on this side, same thing, the .5 is the curb width. The actual sidewalk is only 4.5 feet, it's not 5. And per ADA and per PROWAG, I don't know if you all are familiar with PROWAG, what ADA is, is on private property, ADA is the rules, the law, American Disabilities Act. It is the law that guides handicapped accessibility on private property. It used to cover roads too, but now they've taken roads out and they call it PROWAG, and let me see what that... PROWAG is Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. So now when we're looking at sidewalks, curb ramps, street crossings, pedestrian signals on street parking, that's all covered by PROWAG and not ADA anymore. So ADA requires minimum of 4 foot width for sidewalks. PROWAG has the same requirement with one caveat. Every 200 feet along that walk, there has to be a place where two people can pass each other in wheelchairs. So can you go to Exhibit 2? Okay so, what you see in red right there, per PROWAG, R3202.2, that's where you have curb width is excluded from pedestrian access minimum width. It says there shall be a passing space shall be provided at intervals of 200 foot maximum. So what that means is every 200 feet along the sidewalk, I have to have a place that's 5 by 5 to meet PROWAG and ADA requirements. Okay. Our sidewalk exceeds 211 feet. So if our sidewalk was 199 feet, I wouldn't have to have that. Our sidewalk is 211. That is required. I don't have the room. Our width from face of curb to right of way is 5 feet. I'm 6 inches short. You can see right there .5. That would go over the sidewalk beyond it. It would go on somebody else's property. I have no control over whether we can do that or not. Where the wall is built, there's no room to put that red area. If you go to where the house is built, the house goes right up to the property line. I can't put it there. I don't own the property so I can't put it on somebody else's property. There is a driveway and I spoke with traffic engineering. Let's see. Okay. This is the driveway for that house. I didn't take this picture. This was sent to me by traffic engineering. They suggested that that 5 by 5 could go in this area here. Well, there's two problems with that. One, we don't own it. It's somebody else's property. Number two, that's a driveway and that's as far as that car can pull in. Just past that is there stairs going up to a second level. So if that car parks there, we can't put it on somebody else's property. I'm 6 inches taller than that car. If that car parks there every day, he's going to be hanging over the sidewalk anyway. It's an unsafe issue, I think. We're not meeting PRO-WAG if we build it. If we don't build it, we're meeting PRO-WAG. PRO-WAG does not require sidewalks on both sides of the roads. PRO-WAG also says it doesn't like continuity in the sidewalks. It likes them to go from one place to the other. It doesn't like that. It doesn't like that. It doesn't like continuity in the sidewalks. It likes them to go from one place, connect to another. Well, this is not doing that. Building both sidewalks is redundant. I mean, we don't need two. The sidewalk on the south side, it's over 200 feet long and we're able to accommodate that 5 by 5 area in it because it's our property. So we can bump the sidewalk out where we need and we'll meet PRO-WAG then. That's basically in a nutshell my argument. Yes, the sidewalk was set up to be built. You can see in the pictures it's the right width, but it did not take into account meeting the requirements of PRO-WAG. In the future, this lot here, it may develop. I don't know if y'all have looked into it, but all up and down Hagerman Court, there is a developer who is purchasing every lot in there with the intent of developing it. I think he's bought them all now. It's not the same developer that I'm working for. It's another one. But I think he's only got five or six lots left and he'll own them all. If he develops, he'll own the property. He can put the sidewalk in. He'll most likely tear this house down. Then there'll be room for that bump out and then we will meet PRO-WAG ADA requirements. I'd rather wait and see what happens in the future. We've got a sidewalk on our side that meets ADA, meets PRO-WAG, everything. I'd rather just go with that for now and then let's see how that develops across the road in the future. That's my argument for our waiver. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Do we have any questions on any of these items for Mr. Carter? Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this item today? All right. Do we have any additional information from staff? I will say that I believe it was a tech committee that Scott Thompson, the bicycle pedestrian coordinator, suggested that the sidewalk be built. I don't want to put words in his mouth and he's not here to say that, but we did have that conversation during tech committee. And then also, again, to reiterate the point, if the rest of Hagerman Court is to be developed and potentially this home that's along Hagerman Court is redeveloped, then that would leave this remaining portion of the sidewalk along the retaining wall unbuilt and it would become the gap in the network again. This is David Filiatra, Game and Traffic Engineering. Matt's correct as far as the PROWAG guidelines. Well, they're called guidelines. They are enforced pretty strictly by the Justice Department and things like that. I guess there's two ways of kind of looking at that. The way Matt is at current conditions, how we're looking at now. I think if we knew it was going to be an issue, we would request that they move the road six inches to a foot to the south. I hadn't seen enough information to say for sure that this was an overcomable or not an overcomable problem. Now, there are issues with that. Obviously, the grade with that driveway, trying to get it flat enough because you have to have no greater than 2% slope. And he does need at least a five foot by five foot passing area within that 211 feet. Outside of that, it could be four foot for the entire distance and he would just need a waiver for the typical five foot. So all that being said, I still haven't seen enough information to say for sure that this is impossible. And that's kind of where I ended up. We sent an email to him on Tuesday but didn't really talk too much in depth about any other possible solutions. In my opinion, there's always alternatives or other solutions that could maybe get us to the finish line where we could have that sidewalk and have the appropriate ADA requirements being met as well. But those are design considerations, not necessarily, in my opinion, at this point still. As I recall, at subdivision committee, you said initially you supported the waiver until you started thinking about development. And at that point... Well, this was like two years ago when we discussed the potential that this might come up. But then they showed it on the cross section as well. I was thinking that the problem was kind of... It was tight. Everything was squished as tight as we would typically allow it. But I still assumed that after that point that it would be something that would be buildable. I think it just reinforced the fact that the rest of Hagerman was likely to be redeveloped and that connectivity will be important that, okay, the issues I thought we potentially would have had two years ago didn't seem to be there anymore. And then it's only accentuated by the fact that there's going to be future development. So I'm reading tea leaves here. I think there's a good chance if that portion gets developed, that redeveloped, that the house that's on the corner there would probably go down along with those other... We don't know. That's reading tea leaves. And I'm not opposed to putting the sidewalk there. I'm just thinking as a property owner, the picture that we have on our screen, if you look at the development plan and then you go to the next document, which is the two pictures, and there's a black line on that first picture which shows what would be the width of the sidewalk. And I'm thinking as the property owner, number one, I've got a whole bunch of utility meters. I don't know what those are. Yeah, I think they're gas. Gas. And I'm thinking that that sidewalk's going to go right up to the edge of an old brick building. Are we doing something that's safe? As far as the structural of the building, I couldn't say. I mean, it's definitely unusual. There's no doubt it's a tight, constricted spot. We've accommodated in most ways we could. So we're really just talking about... Six inches to a foot of design, and we really need a five-foot section that we can get. So he can actually reduce all of it to four feet. It's just that, like Matt mentioned, he's right. Somewhere along that 211 feet, we need a five-foot by five-foot passing section for it to be ADA compliant. I'm not in construction. I don't know what I'm talking about. I just know as somebody who owns a house, that would concern me. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, though. That's a great question, though. Any other questions? Okay. And if that block were wiped clean, yeah, we would probably want... Okay, now we want a five-foot. We would want a more typical... We'd want maybe a grass strip or something like that. So if that all goes, it probably will look different. It may get rebuilt as well. So that would be a fair thought. Okay. Do we have any final Commissioner questions or comments? Mr. McClure? And then Mr. Owens. David, help clarify this for me. Am I hearing that with the length of this, that at some point he needs a five-foot section? Yes. Can that... Everything else can be four and a half? Even four. The pedestrian access route, the PAR, as it's defined in the guidelines, is a minimum of four feet. And somewhere in this 200 feet? He would need a different kind of waiver if he went to four. A five-foot section that could make this happen? Yes. Correct. That would be the thing he needs to get. And he's indicated that he can't do that. And I haven't got enough information to say for sure he cannot. Or that he can't. I guess I would need to see more design information. Okay. But that design hadn't come forth yet. So Steven Parker in our division, he went out and took some measurements. And our thought was that there might be some sort of design solution near that driveway. I guess he's indicated that he doesn't believe so. But as far as getting out, measuring, trying to actually go through a design and saying, okay, you're right, we've not done that. We've each gone out separately and made our own determinations independently. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Mickler. This is just a clarification for me from the presentation. Because we had a presentation that had this sidewalk waiver, which we have a staff recommendation for disapproval on. And then we also had the waiver for the pergola. Or we had the pergola in the presentation, but that's not a waiver? Correct. The pergola is just a portion of the development plan that goes along with the- they're doing the development plan to add the pergola and to request the waiver. The pergola is not part of the waiver request. But it does require planning commission approval. The zoning ordinance, that zone, B2A, limits the height of all buildings to three stories unless the planning commission allows a higher building. At that particular corner, the planning commission decided several years ago that it should be three stories. Again, because of the context. And so now they want to make it, in essence, four. It's a very small single family house adjacent to the- And the other side of Lexington. Yeah, but the other side of Lexington Avenue also had two and a half or two story structures. And so three stories was comparable to that. Now we know that on Lexington Avenue, another residential student housing project is going up that's going to be six stories. So that changes the context a bit. And the staff is supportive of a slightly taller corner there. And then, sorry for splitting my things. I understand what's the development plan and what's the waiver now. Thank you for the clarification. I understand that your, that this is longer is by like five feet or six feet. And that, I mean, that's not accommodated. You can't accommodate that on the short end of that retaining wall near Stone. It would be on somebody's property. No, no, no. Well, it wasn't when you all did the development plan. I don't follow you. Where the wall is. Where the wall, we don't own it. Yeah, they've sold that property and there's a fraternity house building on that property. So, okay. Thank you for the clarification. So are you saying that where we need to, or you need to find five foot of space to be compliant, you don't own the property? Yeah, I'm saying there is no place. It's either the walls in the way or we don't own the property. Okay, thank you. If there are no further questions, the floor is certainly open for a motion. Personally, I'm pretty sympathetic to the request. I owned that house. It may get a little close for comfort there. And so I am personally sympathetic. Do we have any other comments or the floor is open? And Mr. Penn clarified, if we do have a motion to approve the waiver request, we have to have findings. Correct. Yes, Mr. Mickler. Well, I have a comment and I'm going to just make this comment before we start with the motions because I'm not sure how the general body feels. My comment on the development plan portion is this building at that side wraps a small historic house on Lexington Avenue. And that was one of the reasons why the developer agreed with a lot of public input to lower that side of the building to three stories. Now, I mean, we're starting to split hairs with what's another story and what's a pergola. But as far as creating space outside on the rooftop, I mean, that can be achieved in a number of ways. Large containers with trees, it can be achieved with tables, with umbrellas. Given how much input and dialogue went around that discussion and given that the small one story or one one and a half story house is still there. I feel that that change in the development plan is is unnecessary because the goals can still be achieved without it. And I'm going to not support that. And then given the sidewalk, I feel like before we create a gap, especially looking towards the future because we're scratching our heads over where to find a five foot section, five feet by six inch section that we don't currently have. I'm inclined to support staff on that one as well. I'm happy to make a motion. I'm not sure what other people feel about the first one, though, given that my personal view disagrees with staff's recommendation for approval. So I can try it or I can hear what other people are thinking. Do we have any more discussion or are we good for Rob to go ahead and make a motion on the development plan? The pergola is covered under the development plan. So I would like to recommend disapproval for the amendments requested to PLN, MJDP 26-19, the Maxwell. For the reasons that I articulated a minute ago, primarily being that the context of the building surrounding the house has not changed. And that the pergola is not necessary to meet the goals of open space on the third story. And that the need for pedestrian connectivity on both sides of the street remains. OK, so that's a motion to disapprove the development plan for the reasons outlined by Commissioner McClure. Is there a second? You'll second that, Mr. Penn. OK. So, again, this is for the development plan, not the waiver yet. And this is a motion to disapprove. OK, that motion fails. Do we have any other comments or the floor is open for another motion? Then we have to have a motion to approve, right? Yes, for the development plan. All right. Here we go. Sorry, Mr. McClure, I'm going the other way on this. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of P.L. and M.J.D.P. 260019, the Maxwell. With the, how many conditions? 13 attached conditions. OK, thank you, Mr. Wilson. Motion from Ms. Wirth, second from Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. McClure. Just a question slash comment. So, Ms. Wirth, this motion is in support of the development plan with the pergola and the removal of the sidewalk. Because that's what, is that? The waiver would be taken separately. The waiver would be taken separately. But that removal of the sidewalk was not included in the revised development plan? Well, it is, but it doesn't meet the regulations, which is why they needed a waiver. It's the waiver part. So, if the development plan gets approved, but the request for the waiver fails, the applicant still has to go back and figure it out? It's not like? Yes. OK, yeah, right. They have to figure out the sidewalk. Right now there are two separate issues. Sidewalk is one issue, pergola is the other. Yes. OK. So, we had a motion from Commissioner Wirth, second from Mr. Wilson. Any more discussion? If not, we will put that to a vote. OK, that carries. Now we can move on to the waiver request. OK, I guess I should do that. OK, no, I'm going to do a disapproval. Yes, so I'm going to approve the waiver. OK. OK, all right, so let me get to my, where's the waiver part on here? Does it have a number? OK. All right, here, I see it. OK, Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the waiver PLN WAV 2600005, regarding the sidewalk requirements, with the finding that the applicant demonstrated that trying to meet those requirements was going to be a hardship, that lack of ownership of the property and for other issues, it was not appropriate. Yes, sir. OK, Commissioner Wirth, motion second from Mr. Wilson. This is to approve the waiver and that the applicant has demonstrated that it is a hardship. So, we will put that to a vote. OK, that carries. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Moving on. OK, now, if I'm correct, we're on page seven. PLN WAV 26-6, Beaumont Farm. OK, we're moving on down the agenda. PLN WAV 26-6, Beaumont Farm, Unit 10, Lot 10. This is a final development plan. They are wanting to add additional building for additional square footage for retail. This is located out in Beaumont Center Circle. We have Harrodsburg Road. Then you come in and go around the circle. This was the original Kroger's and this was the new Superstore Kroger's on the other end. Cheryl, I'm sorry to interrupt you. We're still stuck in voting mode, so we can't view any of our documents like we typically can. Oh. Sorry. You can continue, Cheryl. We like to zoom in and look at everything. I'm sorry. OK, well, I'll zoom in this way. Can you all see now? Mr. Chair, while they're trying to figure it out, you can go to agenda and look at them that way. No, we were stuck in another mode. Right. No, you get out of that and then go to agenda. We can now, yes. OK. All right. Thank you. Sorry, Cheryl. Thank you. So this is we're in the Beaumont Center property. And so we're going to go to this is Beaumont Center lane going back into the residential area. And this was the original Kroger's. They are proposing to put in a retail shop right here. And so their development plan is being reviewed. It was approved with the technical committee. But they're coming in to ask for a waiver for the landscaping on the property because they cannot, not landscaping, I'm sorry, open space, because they cannot meet the required open space on the property. When they add the additional square footage in the middle of the parking lot, they have proposed some open area on both ends of it. They have a connection open space area connecting over to the main shopping center. As you can see, it's part of a larger area. They also have a sidewalk that will leave from the retail shops through here down and over here to Beaumont Center lane. They're requesting a waiver of Article 20-2B of the zoning ordinance because they're having problems meeting the minimum requirements of 15% usable and vegetated open spaces. They were only to be able to come up with 11.4% for the usable open space and 8% for the vegetated open space where it's required to be 15%. They have reduced the parking in this area from 257 spaces down to 177 spaces. And so to be able to, I guess, increase the open space, they would have to remove more parking. But since they're adding additional retail space, they were not wanting to do that. And so they're requesting a waiver of the open space. As you can see, the waiver request does not compromise the public health safety welfare and supports the intent of Article 20-2B as the applicant is providing more interior VUA and vegetated open areas than what exists currently and is intensifying the underutilized portion of the property. The extent of the waiver is particular. Regulation is the minimum necessary to afford relief to the applicant as the requested balances the parking and the circulation needs for the existing commercial site. A strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land or would create unnecessary hardship on the applicant impacting desirable modifications to the longstanding center. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you, Cheryl. Do we have any questions on this particular plan and waiver request? Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. My name is Todd Ernst. I'm with CMW Architects and Engineers down the street at 249 East Main. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, and we support the staff recommendation and request approval of the waiver. Brilliant. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this request, or do we have any commissioner comment or questions, or the floor is open for a motion? Yes, sir, Mr. McClure. Move to approve PLN WAV 26-6 for the reasons given by staff. Second. Thank you. This is to approve the requested waiver. Yes, thank you. Okay. Motion from Mr. McClure, second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? No. We'll take a vote on that one. Okay. Thank you, applicant. Next item on the agenda is PLN WAV 26-8, Coventry, Omaha Farm. All right. Page 7, number 5B, on your agenda, WAV 26-8. This is for Coventry, Belmont Farm, Belmont Center lots one through 11. I think they've actually amended its lots one through they dropped two lots, and then there's an additional lot that's being shown as additional portion of right-of-way that's being shown as a lot on this particular plat. At this time, there's actually nine lots and a portion of right-of-way, just for some clarification. This is at the corner of Georgetown Road and Citation, 2450 Georgetown Road, 2313 Remington Way, and 2441 Huntley Place. This is Huntley Place along here. This is the portion that is proposed future right-of-way, but with this final record plat, it's currently just being shown as a lot. It's not being dedicated at this time. The final record plat is FRP 26-7. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the land subdivision regulations, specifically Article 4-7 pertaining to the substantial completion requirement for public infrastructure. The applicant is requesting the waiver under Article 1-5A, exceptional hardship. Let's see if we've got this. Actually, I'm going to go back here for just a minute. Specifically, the applicant requests the waiver to allow 100% surety bond to the public sanitary sewer improvements for lots one, two, four, five, and six. The sewer cannot be constructed on these lots until the overall mass grading is complete. Phase one of the overall mass grading has started and phase two will begin once the associated amended final development plan is certified. The current amended final record plat proposes to divide the property into nine lots and dedicate right away. Well, sorry, we changed that. It's not dedicating right away with this plat, but it will in the future. The development is located at the northeast corner of Citation Boulevard and Georgetown Road. The applicant cites a need to transfer lots within the development to meet the contractual deadlines with tenants prior to the completion of the necessary infrastructure. At the time of certification, the public improvements will not be able to be utilized for the purposes which they were intended. However, work continues to progress on the property. And the project engineer states the requirements of the land subdivision regulations will be followed as sewers are constructed along with site improvements. And I believe, and Matt may be able to speak better to this, there's sewers at this end of the property, but not on through the property. And so they're working on doing additional work, but they want to be able to sell off some of the lots. And so we do recommend approval of the requested waivers of Article 4-7C1. For the following reasons, granting the requested waiver to the substantial completion requirement will not adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety in compliance with the intent of the land subdivision regulations. Because the sanitary sewer will be constructed to ensure all ten lots are buildable. Number two, granting the waiver is consistent with the intent of Article 1-5A of the land subdivision regulations for exceptional hardship due to the unique timing considerations for completing the public improvements and the transfer of property before all the infrastructure is in place. And then if it is approved, if the waiver is approved, the following conditions should be applied to denote that no development on lots one, two, four, five, and six shall be allowed until a final development plan is approved and certified including an evaluation of the sanitary sewer capacity. And number two, the applicant shall provide 100% surety bond for all public improvements per the requirements of the land subdivision regulations and engineering manuals. And with that, I'll open it up to you all for questions. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Mr. Carter. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Only thing I want to add to what Chris said on the sewers is there is existing sewers here that hit several lots, but there's also sewers across here that hit lots. So there are sewers on site. We do have a final development plan that we have filed, and we're going through the process technical review committee on that. Once that's approved, we'll be able to start the mass grading for the remainder of the property and build the sewers. But we need to get this waiver to get that going so we can sell some of the properties. With that, we're in agreement with the staff's conditions and ask for your approval. Thank you, Matt. All right. Do we have any questions for Mr. Carter at this time? I just had a question, Matt. There is a Kentucky Historical marker on Georgetown Road right there. Is that on this property or is it further up? What kind of marker? A Kentucky Historical marker. I believe it's the Man of War birthplace. I'm not familiar with it, so I think it's probably not on the property. It's along Georgetown Road. I was just curious, should that be noted on the development plan just as that has to stay in place? Is it in reference to this property or to something ahead? I'm trying to overlay a Google aerial with the plat to see. It's pretty close, whether or not it's on it or not. I just like for things to be noted if it is on there that it will be respected. If that's something we need to note on the plat, absolutely we'll do that. It's very close. What it is, it identifies that Man of War was born there on Beaumont Farm. It's a highway marker, but it's not real close to the road. If it is on the property, I'd just like to see them noted on the development plans, because that's one of those things that's easy for a crew to come in and, oh, we'll temporarily take it down and set it over here, and then it never comes back. We will note that it needs to remain. Again, I don't have the maps in front of me where I can definitively tell. I think it is, but I can't say for certain. But if it is, I would like to see it noted on the development plan, that's all. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Do we have any questions, or the floor is open for a motion? Well, Ms. Jones, this is just a waiver approval, correct? We're not approving a development plan necessarily? Okay. But the question about the sign, retaining the sign, will that get bundled? It's not related to the waiver, so it's not really appropriate for there to be a condition related to that. I think Mr. Carter acknowledged that if there's a highway marker, that he would note the location of it. I think once you drive out there, it would be easy to locate where it is and note that it should not be impacted by the construction. As an old man that remembers Georgetown Road before they redid it, it used to be right on the side of Georgetown Road, but when they rebuilt the road, they moved it over and the sign stayed, is what happened. Okay. So the floor is? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNWAV 26-8 for the reasons provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Pim. This is for the waiver, thank you. This is for the waiver. Yes. A second from Commissioner Wirth. Is there any discussion? If not, we will take a vote on that. Great. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Okay. Are there any commission items other than the postponed cell phone? Yes, sir, Mr. Pim. I want to ask a question. On the item that we had that had the graves on it, we probably should have included the piece of land that has the above-ground swimming pool to determine who owns that before we come back for a continuation, and they're not prepared to answer that. How do we do that now with the law? How do we notify Jihad that we'd like to have that cleared up? Because there's no proof that he owns that land. That's going to be a problem. Well, I mean, I guess Jihad's gone but Matt's here. I mean, if you all want to. I'll be glad to pass on any information. I will say, Mr. Pim and all of you all, there was a title run on that property and there was no graveyard showed up. There was no property dedicated for that pool. And, you know, other than a title commitment, that's typically what the property owners that are, I'm sorry, the developers that are, you know, that's what they go by. I understand. And nothing showed up. That involves walking the property. That would be on a title. Well, it involves research and anything that's recorded. And if there is something recorded on that. Hold on. A cemetery of, you know, that nature may not be recorded. What I'm concerned about is the public comment about that pool. If we're going to have a continuation of the hearing, I'd like to at least have some kind of definitive reason because I didn't hear a lot of reason. I mean, I agree with you because for us to move forward, we have to resolve that. Yeah. So I guess you can make a motion, if you would like, if you want it to be clear on the record, that it be communicated through, you know, Mr. Carter being here for vision, that, you know, any further evidence about the title and the relationship to that property be brought back at the same time. Is that acceptable to you if you're here? And that way it's on the record. And then, I mean, I'm not saying, I don't know what they're going to bring back. So I don't know if that will answer your questions or clear it up. But you can ask him to do that if you want to. And then we'll have a record, a motion on the record. I wouldn't be as concerned about it if I hadn't heard the testimony from the man that has the pool on there. So I guess, Matt, I'd move that you translate to your engineering staff that we figure out what we're going to do with that part of that property. Yeah. Is it? To the record, that would be, sorry, that would be item PLN-MJ-DP-2610, the Bryant property. So you want me to do that in my motion? I mean, it doesn't hurt for you to do that. All right. And, Mr. Penn, I guess just the question I have involves also, is there a claim of adverse possession? Yeah. That's my concern. Thank you for the realtor comment because I didn't know what to call it. So it's adverse possession. All right. I move that on PLN-MJ-DP-2610 that when we have the rest of the continuation that we have some idea of the ownership of the property that has the pool on it. Is that an adverse? Is there a legal claim? Because, I mean, Tracy, if there is litigation pending on something, can we even take action on it? Well, I mean, right now I think what you're going to get back from Vision is what they have. And if what they have shows there's no anything like that and you take action on it and then that property owner comes back against them with a separate action, that's going to be between them staying there. You know what I'm saying? I'm not sure they're going to go out and investigate an adverse possession claim necessarily or that we can make them do that. No. I think that can happen is that everybody moves forward on something and then somebody else comes forward and files litigation. Is your advice to us to leave it alone? No. I think it's fair for you to ask Vision to say, since it was brought up today, just bring us what you all have in regard to the title on the property. If that property owner then wants to raise something different or pursue a different route, that's up to him. I understand that. But I didn't want us to get into that battle. I understood him to say today that he was seeking legal counsel, so maybe he will have contacted them by the time we come back. One would hope, but you know. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. Okay. So Mr. Penn made a motion. Mr. Wilson seconded it. Is there any further discussion? If not, we will take a vote. Did you get a second? Mr. Wilson. I said yes. Okay. We agree. Thank you. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Thank you. That being the last item on our agenda, Mr. Duncan, do you have anything for us today? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Planning Commission will have a regular Planning Commission work session next Thursday, April 16th, 1.30 in the Phoenix Building. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.