What a team they have and what a team when they work with us. And we want to thank you, the viewers out there, everybody that's watching the show, all the comments that we get, the people that come up to us and say they watch it, we appreciate that. If you have any ideas on some of the episodes in the future that you'd like to see or things you want to learn more about, reach out to us and let us know because this is about you and your Lex PD and you learning about our agency and how we work together. And I would love that. And so this season, we're kind of going to focus on public safety partnerships. So we're going to start off this season with E911. Yeah, and when we talk about partnerships, we're very blessed in Lexington with all the different partnerships we have, both within the Lexington-Fayton Urban County Government and then also just in the community itself, all the folks and all the partnerships that we have. Very, very important to make it all work together. We're going to highlight some of the things in specialized units and so forth over the next few episodes and over the next season. But, yeah, that partnership and the one we're starting with today, that's where, you know, I remember when we did the patrol episode, I said it all begins here. Well, it actually almost always begins there because it begins when you call 911 and the folks that you're going to be talking to and how they're going to dispatch that, whether it's a police call, a fire call. So I'm excited about talking with our enhanced 911 center today on your Lex PD. So let's go talk to them. We're getting ready to start our technical review committee meeting for May 27th. Cheryl's going to start us off with the first plan. Good morning. Good morning. First plan on the agenda, FRP 2612, Belldale Edition, Lot 66B, amended. We are out off the corner of Robertson and Bassett Avenue. This property was subdivided a year or so ago. There was two homes on one lot, and they subdivided it and put a 30-foot building line on it. and so now whoops now they're coming in to adjust the building line because there's an existing home on the property adjust the building line to what is current in the ordinance so with that requirements not met addition of maintenance note for drainage and easements addition of tree information modified building lines to comply with the front yard standards and then the staff recommends approval with the following sign offs engineering traffic addressing urban forest or open space utilities division of water qualities cap improvement and then correct all note deficiencies listed requirements not met here on and I will ask if there is anybody has any other comments or if anybody wants to be removed from the list. You can remove cap. Okay. Remove capacity assurance. Anybody else? If not, applicant if you want to have a comment. Hello, I'm Gary Rowland with CAM Survey. As far as removing sign offs, is there any need to have the utility companies on here? We're not really changing things except a building line. We're not increasing density or adding a unit or just all we're doing is reducing a building line. So the same easements that they signed off on, I think, three or four years ago would stay in place, if it's possible to remove them. They can be hard to track down sometimes. Are utilities on here other than just – I think the note just says to addition of utility streetlight easements and as required by utility companies. I don't know that that's a – is there an official sign-off associated with that? Yeah, they all sign off on every plat. Except minor plats, which I don't know how this isn't a minor plat. Well, it's not, so we're not going to argue about that today. Boyd just said open space can come off. Okay. And then, so the ordinance deals with the building lines. Confusing to me, but, I mean, I guess we've read it. It does apply, and we can only reduce that building line by 10 feet from where the existing structure was. Correct. Okay. It had a front porch on it. I guess I get with building inspection to see exactly what they consider what that setback was before. They consider the setback the front plane of the house. A porch is a projection. So if it wasn't enclosed, it was not considered part of the structure. Okay. And I'd have foot back on it. Yeah. That's all I have. Okay. Anybody else have anything? All right. Staff's recommendation is for approval. So the motions for approval of PLN, FRP 2612, Beldale edition, lot 66B amended, removing open space planner and Division of Water Quality's cap approval as sign-offs. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Sorry. Allergies are bad this morning. Okay, we're going to move on to the next FRP 2613 Masterson Station Center, Citation Center amended. We have the wrong address on here. It should be 129 Ferndale Place. This is Ferndale Place here. Here's Citation Boulevard. the reason for this plat is to reconfigure the street cross section along Ferndale place adding the trail that was required at time it was originally approved so we have a street cross section here showing the multi-use trail they're moving it up adjacent to the street as opposed to further on back so we're changing the street cross-section to be able to accompany this so with this requirements not met identify common open space on face of plant of plat and correct zone to in open space notes addition of minimum floor elevation protection note correct Commission certification remove floodplain labels label existing proposed detention easements provide replacement and updated surety waivers necessary this since this is changing the street cross-section we need to have a waiver on this local street cross-section filing deadline is Friday for this playing questions or concerns is the SWM area repairing an area shown in the deed of easement will curb need to be replaced with an integral curb and sidewalk for the full length of Ferndale Pass the staff recommends approval with the following sign-offs engineering traffic urban forester bike and pad utilities and streetlights and then correct all note deficiencies as listed we should also have that provided the Planning Commission approves the waiver So okay No, it should be under seven yeah Okay, I'll open it to anyone else to see if there's any other comments or questions or anybody else can be removed from the list Did you have something wrong I'm sorry I just didn't know in the discussions with planning or traffic if they discussed an integral curb for that. That was that comment. I was asking David, but maybe Rory can answer the question. I was just going to say maybe the applicant might be able to answer that if there's nothing else. Good morning. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. I don't believe it needs to be replaced. What we think happens is the curb and the sidewalk that are in place stay at expansion joints and just pave in between the two. Between the two, yeah, for concrete. Is it asphalt or is it the trail going to be asphalt? No, it's a concrete sidewalk and concrete curb, so all we're doing is adding concrete between the two. So the utilities got put in right behind the existing sidewalk, all the boxes and everything. So that's why we came back trying to find a solution to where we didn't have to rip out all the electrical boxes, phone boxes. So then trying to put to put it in the utility strip and making that a trail from the curb back. Wasn't our first choice, but it was what we ended up with. Was that fence always optional, or is that a new addition to the cross-section? Because there's no fence out there, and I thought originally there was an intention to have a fence. When did that become optional? Just curious if that's in the timeline somewhere. I think it was always on there as optional. Was it? Okay. All right. There was just a lot of change when this came back in. quite a bit, yeah. Okay. Which one? My suggestion is to follow the plan when it gets approved. You can avoid all this. Well, yeah, that would really help, yeah. Does anybody have anything else? Let's see. The Planning Commission certification, that's to correct us saying that the waiver was the only thing at the PC correct? Yeah. Their approval of the waiver Tracy, it's just their approval of the waiver Yep I guess when it comes to constructability there might still be some details as far as how it's going to be constructed. Vom was asking about the depth of the Maltese Trail versus the sidewalk? Are the standards different depths? I'm actually not sure. Is it six inch or four and a half inch? I don't think it is, but I could be wrong. I mean, I know that we've done, I know engineering has done some deeper concrete without base on projects, but I don't know if there's a standard that shows it. Ultimately, how it gets built is not necessarily germane at this point, right? It's just the cross section, and then once you get a permit or an encroachment permit to do it, I guess that will be when the construction discussion could happen. It's just like the idea of one long longitudinal, I don't know. I'm not familiar with the construction methodology. You need to update a surety maybe because I wasn't sure if the length of the surety was for the full length of Ferndale. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It should have been. With the original plaid, I think we're on four or five now. It should have covered the full improvement. If you have, like, a driveway is six inches of concrete, but a sidewalk is four and a half inches, I wasn't sure. I have to check. Yeah, this should not have vehicles on it. We have no driveways. There is one crossing, and you'll need to check your driveway to make sure that the cross slope isn't greater than 2%. You may need to adjust that. well that was probably built before with the old plan which had the trail at the back of the ramp so they'll have to they'll have to change that as well but that could come out as a part of the we just have to figure that out yeah yeah wait we haven't done the plans yet waiting for approval Anybody else? Okay, the motion is for approval of PON FRP 2613, Masterson Citation Center, Citation Center amended with the correction of the address to 129 Ferndale Pass and the addition of with the Planning Commission's approval of the waiver under staff recommendations. So moved. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thanks. Thanks, Roy. All right, moving along. First development plan on our agenda, MJDP 26, Secura Justice Unit 6, Polo Club Center Lot 2 amended. This is located at 6400 Polo Club Lane. The purpose of the plan is to update site statistics and add additional 1,385 square feet to the building C on lot 2. So we have Manowar Boulevard here, and this is Polo Club Boulevard here. And then this is Polo Club Lane that comes off of Polo Club Boulevard into this development. We recently had a development plan amendment on this lot. Current lot is 3, which is the existing C-Store. Maybe it'll help us see it just a little bit better. This is the subject property. I'm going to go in just a little bit more. So they're proposing an addition here on the side of the building and an addition here with some slight changes to the parking they're removing some parking on either end for the additions under requirements not met number one denote no building permit shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is certified by the secret secretary of the Planning Commission number two modify the Greenway note this development contains a portion of the North North Elkhorn conservation Greenway corridor as shown on the 2002 Greenway master plan. Number three, upload open space exhibit to Acela and include open space requirements and site statistics as a percentage. Number four, correct purpose of plan to include all proposed square footage. Number five, correct title block to match staff report. Number six, denote ownership of adjacent properties. Number seven, clarify line work between property and floodplain boundaries. It seemed like there were a lot of similar line types that made it a little difficult to determine what was what. Number eight, remove stop pavement marking from the left turn lane on Polo Club Boulevard, and I believe there had been some discussion about that already, but it needs to come off the plan, the improvements out on Polo Club Boulevard. Number nine, depict contour lines for the entire site. Number 10, move elevation bubble to eliminate conflict with address for building B on lot one. There were a few text conflicts. I can't remember exactly where that one was, but like this box overlapping the canopy. Number 13, verify corrected commission certification based upon approval. 14 denote no change to existing lighting or provide lighting plan that complies with article 30 of the zoning ordinance number 15 depict bicycle parking number 16 denote canopy height and dimension canopy number 17 dimension all driveways and walkways number 18 depict required floodplain elevation number 19 remove unnecessary information storm inlets pipes proposed contours and spot elevation number 20 submit a tree preservation plan as a separate document number 21 submit a tree inventory map as a separate document with required information including rla stamp or isa certified arborist name number who performed the inventory and then number 22 denote tree protection areas there are no waivers requested at this time under design considerations number one see all acela comments provided by the division of engineering number two investigate potential conflict with the storm inlet that is in the paved area on the same side as the dumpster. Number 13, confirm verify no change in sanitary sewer capacity. Number four, ensure stormwater management quantity and quality requirements are met and denote location on the DP. Under plan questions and concerns, confirm dumpster size and location will remain the same. And then we do recommend approval with standard conditions and sign-offs, engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban Forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, division of fire, waste management, division of water quality's approval of the CAP requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. We can probably drop the Postal Service off that. Yeah, I thought I'd cross that off. And then on the front, you skipped number 11, which was depict pedestrian connections that conform to the zoning ordinance. Okay. And with that, I'll open it up to the committee for discussion. Yeah. I know this is focused on Building C here, but can you pan over to the other part of the plan where it shows Buildings A and B, I think it is? Yeah, these two. Just want to make sure that Building B is not shown clipping the flood plan. We just had a question about that. It was hard to tell. Yeah, it was just hard to tell. Some of the line work and everything like that. So that was a question that we had. Okay. I think maybe if the line weights are a little different, it would be easier to tell. Anybody else? Anything? I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of the applicant. Josh Cecil is the engineer. He couldn't be here today, so I said I would stand up for him here today, and I'll communicate what I've heard to him. I think on number eight, the remove stop, I think that's been physically removed off the plan. Okay, off the plan. Okay, well, they did the hard part and not the easy part. Okay, I will communicate to that and send the rest of this information on to them. Thank you. Anybody have anything else? All right. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. so the staff's recommendation is for approval of so the motions for approval of PLN MJDP 2626 secure justice unit 6 hello club center lot to amended with the removal of the US Postal Service for sign offs so moved all in favor so anyone opposed motion passes We're heading down the agenda. The next plan is MJDP 2635 George West Estate property, also known as Howard property, and is amendment for Casey's. We have Georgetown Road. Here is the Casey's on the property. Here's a little bit better. They're adding additional 156 square feet to the rear portion of the property. So with that, requirements not met. Correct note number two to read, no building permits shall be issued unless until a final development plan is certified by the Secretary of Planning Commission. Denote no land disturbance, construction, clearing of native vegetation or mowing shall occur in the vegetative buffer zone. denote there are no changes to the existing lighting, improved legibility of all information from previous plan, including dimensions, text, bearings, and distances on property, addition of adjacent property information with dashed lines, addition of adjacent property information, orient vicinity map to match plan at scale of 1 inch equals 2,000, addition of elevation labels on contour lines, dimension existing and proposed buildings, sidewalks, parking, and points of ingress and egress, denote construction access, denote height of canopy over pumps, label boxed area in the front of property in the AR zone. I'd point that out. We didn't know what this was here. And as you can tell this is the zoning line here this portion is the AR and then B3 they do have a board of adjustment approval to be able to exist into the AR 50 feet clarify existing proposed easements to note significant trees from previous plans update block coverage square footage for your ratio vehicles use area and totals and site statistics addition of addresses on each building remove referenced of November 2022 from note 20 correct commission certification correct gaff graphic scale dumpster enclosures require additional bollards upload open space exhibit to a cello that matches the site statistics box and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage provide Bicycle parking and storage. Depict the required floodplain information. Submit tree inventory map that complies with the zoning ordinance. At this time, there are no waivers. Design considerations. See all the comments provided by the Division of Engineering. Plan questions or concerns. What is the plan for stormwater management? Is there a floodway? What is the status of the CLOMER? Clarify note number 26. Clarify post-development canopy coverage for lot 1. The staff recommends approval with all these, with the sign-offs from engineering, traffic, landscaping, addressing, urban forest, forester, environmental quality, bike and ped, open space, division of fire, water control, Division of waste management division of water quality and then correct note all note deficiencies listed requirements not met here on I will ask if there's any other comments or questions or if anyone can be removed from this list of sign-offs Okay, the applicant you want to come speak Good morning. My name is Madison. I am here from the Dimension Group. All the requirements, we can go ahead and add those to the plan. So we'll go ahead and do that. I guess for stormwater management, we are not proposing any changes to floodway, floodplain, etc. So do we still need to do something with that? Just that. Yeah, it's existing. I mean, if we want to zoom up or pan up to the top of the page, there were just there were just some questions it just seemed very vague or pan okay okay gotcha so the top is I think it mentions a floodway we did not see a floodway on GIS there's a there's a flood plain um so just some just I thought there was some other lines on there that just didn't seem to make a lot of sense so just a just some cleanup of the floodplain slash flood way if there is one or if there or if there is one that's being created from this project just a lot of questions yeah not being created everything's existing to remain I think we got this off the previous development plan floodway marking so if it's not there then it's not there but um that's i guess where that came from um yeah we'll we'll go ahead and do that then um just a couple other things we wanted to discuss was um i guess the canopy coverage for lot one um we're not removing or proposing any of the existing vegetation canopy it's all existing to remain if that's acceptable. We obviously have the B3 corridor kind of on the front of the property up there. And currently it does not meet the standards of ordinances. Is that going to be an issue if we can't meet that? Should we just mark it up on the plans as everything's existing to remain. Sorry. Hi. So I made a comment that the stats were a little unclear. So, I mean, you can't necessarily waive the standards of 26. You still have to get the canopy coverage that's required. Okay. Even in the B3 zoning? yeah it's in the agricultural back portion but for the b3 zone do we also need to because that's i mean our fuel canopy is pretty much taking up and that's a different lot it's the same lot it's you would have to you would have yeah you would have to or apply for a waiver. Okay. I guess same thing for the open space standards. Similar kind of issue with the B3 zone as it exists currently. What's the question on office space? Again, we just don't meet those standards in the ordinances. I think it's Article 20, just in that B3 zone, just similar as the canopy coverage. Is that something we would also need a waiver for? We're happy to put the existing statistics and everything on the plans. That's the lot one, the B3 portion of lot one, right? Yes, B3 of lot one. the rest of it meet, is that right? Or probably, maybe? I believe it's close, yeah, but we're not associated in any way with two and three. They're just, yeah. I think on the previous plan, I'm sitting in for Eve, and I remember going through this plan previously, and they did meet the open space requirements because we went back and forth, so if it's not changed, I can review it again and get back to you. Okay, cool, thank you. Yeah, I think that covers everything we had. Thank you. Anybody have anything else? All right, this staff's recommendation is for approval. So the motion is for approval of PLN, MJDP 2635, George West Estate property, Howard property, amended with the removal of cap assurance number 11 under conditional sign-offs. So moved. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving along. Our next plan, MJDP 2637 Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 4, Lots 23, 24, and 31, Coldstream Farm, Sky 3. This is an amended plan. This is located at 1501, 1525, and 1776 McGrathiana Parkway. the purpose of the plan is to construct a 224,000 square foot grocery and pharmacy delivery station with associated parking so we have this is citation boulevard to the plan left this is where mcgrathiana intersects citation and then if you're familiar with that it makes a big lollipop comes around so mcgrathiana comes back so it's actually on the corner of mcgrathiana and mcgrathiana parkway. They're depicting a, this is the main building kind of in the center with surface parking here. This is a detention basin and then there's a future proposed building with more associated parking, another detention basin, and then they're depicting an access off of Citation Boulevard, which looks like where their truck entrance and loading docks are. And then also, this is the Greenway, just to the north. Kind of orient a little bit better. Currently, there are three lots on this site. The property boundary comes across here and then down this way. So there's a lot here, a lot here, and a lot here. and there are utility easements along those common property boundaries. And utilities. And utilities. There's utilities in the easements already, so that's not just the easements. Right, right. They're not just easements. There's existing utilities in those utility easements. Under requirements not met, number one, denote development in areas of alluvial soils will comply with Article 6-11 of the land subdivision regulations. number two denote no buildings or structures shall be located in any land with a slope greater than 30 percent for areas with slopes between 15 percent 30 percent the provisions of article 6-11 of the land subregs shall be applicable number three denote this property is adjacent to the cold stream conservation easement any encroachment into the easement will require approval from the green space trust number four denote development shall comply with article 19 of the zoning ordinance number five to note no land disturbance construction or clearing of native vegetation or mowing shall occur in the vegetative buffer zone invasive species may be removed by handheld equipment or a forestry grinder number six correct note 11 to read landscaping shall conform with article 18 of the zoning ordinance and article 6-11 of land subregs and tree protection ordinance and the tree protection ordinance number seven denote Automatic and manual gate systems require the pre-approval of the Lexington Fire Department Water Control Office prior to being installed. Automatic gates shall have the click-to-enter system. Number eight, provide dumpster enclosure and concrete pad specifications. Number nine, upload open space exhibit to Acela and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number ten, use standard site statistics table. and we can provide that template. Number 11, denote conditional zoning. Number 12, denote written scale. Number 13, remove shading for clarification. And that's the shading around the adjacent area. Number 14, correct title block to match staff report. Number 15, depict subject property with solid lines and adjacent property with dashed lines. Number 16, denote owner information for all adjacent properties. Number 17, depict north arrow on vicinity map. Number 18, denote construction access. Number 19, remove internal building details on development plan. Number 20, denote floor area ratio and lot coverage in the site statistics. Number 21, provide summary report documenting conceptual design review and recommendations of the design committee, and that's per Article 8-2407 of the zoning ordinance. Number 22, provide full-size lighting plan for review. Number 23, denote consolidation plat and easement conflict resolution will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Number 24, denote Citation Boulevard access must be approved by KYTC. Number 25, label the cold stream conservation easement present on the adjacent property. 26, denote required floodplain information. 27 depict vegetative buffer and 25-foot buildings set back from floodplain number 28 depict and label proposed storm sewer and drainage easements to address pass-through drainage number 29 update note number 16 to citation boulevard number 30 dimension all driveways and walkways number 31 depict all existing and proposed easements number 32 access point shown directly off citation boulevard is closer than allowed in subdivision regulations number 33 submit a tree inventory map and a tree preservation plan as separate documents with all required information number 34 mitigation proposal is required for all proposed significant tree removals above and beyond requirements for articles 18 and 26 of the zoning ordinance number 35 provide justification for removals and mitigation proposal on tree preservation plan and then under waivers a waiver would be required for the commercial access point off mcgrathiana being larger than the maximum of 40 feet and then number two access spacing to minor arterial collector streets under design considerations number one see all acela comments provided by the division of engineering number two add address sanitary sewer capacity and number three van accessible ada spots must have a minimum of eight feet between spaces not all ada spaces have to be van accessible then under plan questions and concerns or concerns number one discuss status of the release of easements and that's those utility easements with the utilities that I mentioned earlier number two discuss citation Boulevard access number three clarify floodplain information number four is the internal sidewalk through the parking lot at pavement grade or is there an actual sidewalk number five is their potential for roadway lighting conduit and pole bases to be installed as part of this project number six design does not preserve the greatest number of trees and number seven provide more information of design for access off McGrathiana Parkway and at this time we do recommend postponement there's questions about the release of easements and then the access long citation if the plan is approved there's the standard sign offs engineering traffic engineering landscaping addressing urban forester environmental quality bike ped open space division of fire vision waste management water qualities approval of the cap requirements US Postal Service and then correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met and that open it up to the committee for discussion there there was an older preliminary but we have the Royal Springs aquifer note under I guess 36 Anything else from the committee? Somebody with the app? Tony? I'm Caleb Jones. I'm with StoneMott. We represent the developer. We have Tony Barrett here as well. I think I would like to start with the waivers, if possible. on number one, the commercial access point off McGrathiana is larger than the maximum 40 feet. So a question for traffic would be, is it possible to have two entrances with a median to avoid that waiver? If it's one break at the curb, it's just one driveway. So you can have a median in the driveway itself, but if you're braking, Like you would almost have to separate it, and then you'd have to separate it by – it wouldn't really make sense. So a waiver would be more appropriate for what you're wanting. Okay. That would help significantly with your pedestrian crossing at that location, though, because then it's going to be wider than 24 feet. So you have to raise that crossing or have some kind of a – Not at the driveway. At the – at Citation? At their access office Citation? McGrath-Y-Odd. Oh, sorry. Wrong one. Yeah, I got you. Okay. And then going on to the one on citation, I'm assuming number two is for the citation. Yeah, there's a calculation in the subdivision regulations. It's for driveway spacing along, and it's – I'm not sure where it came from, but it's been there a long time, Tony. You're probably aware of it, I guess. But it's for commercial access. I don't know how to use it, but it's – Commercial access, but you take a look at that, and then if you can make the – it's based on trip generation and things like that. If that works out, you wouldn't need a waiver. If you can't make that, which I probably won't, you would need a waiver. We talked to KYTC in very long detail of that specific access. And so right now it's greater than 500 feet. Typically, yeah, typically I think it's 600. But the one question I have is the access to the median there. What are your proposed for the access? Is it right in, right out? Because the median, it isn't clear. That's right, yes. So there would be no medium break. It would just be right in, right out. Okay. There's also heavy traffic through here at high speeds. Pedestrian traffic. Not pedestrian, sorry. Pedestrian, like regular vehicle traffic, not just trucks. So the trucks doing U-turns? I think we talked about that internally as a concern. Yeah, what will be the operational? So obviously they're coming in, making a right, unloading or loading, whatever. Unloading, I guess, yeah. and then make a ride out, will they operationally, will they be directed to the Georgetown Road to get back on the interstate? I'm just presuming. Yes. Okay, I wouldn't. Citation's enormous, so there's actually room for it, but I wouldn't want that to be, what's that? You can't get back on the interstate from Georgetown. You can go up to Ironworks. Oh. That's what I was thinking. To the more rural area. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you could go up to Ironworks. But the U-turn, yeah, I mean, you could, because Citation's so large, Yes, and we're the developer. The end client here has no interest in having trucks do U-turns, so it would be ride-in, ride-out and operate safely. I think in this specific access, we would not like to have a waiver if possible, but we've spoken with Coldstream in a very long time working this with them. They do not want any trucks on the Granteana Parkway, so that is why this access is on citation. It's not our preference. I think it would be safer to put homography on it, but Coldstream would like it on citation to keep truck access or trucks out of the park. So UK, get it, they don't own the streets. Right. They're public streets owned by the government, not by UK. So they also don't control access, the local government, and the state, the transportation cabinet. So, again, I get it that they don't think trucks are there, but it's an industrial and professional office park mixed and has been since the day it got rezoned. You should work for us. Yeah, first and foremost, check out that calculation. See if you can make that work. Otherwise, you would have to have a waiver. I don't think there's not a way to waive the waiver. So that would be – I think it's more noted here, too. Our truck count is really low for this building. Our dock doors that we have is not conducive of a traditional industrial building that we would build. So low-level dock doors, and most of these deliveries are going to be at night for our trucks. And I think if you get to the waiver part, that's where – ultimately, it will require the planning commission to sign off, and that's where you make your case. And that's probably in there somewhere. Let me ask just a procedural. Being a state, maintain road citation, a state, if we get an encroachment agreement from the state, do we still need the waiver from the city so they're separate? Yes, they're separate. Theirs is a minimum, ours is a minimum, so the higher minimum applies. Yeah, and if you get an encroachment again, that's where you're making your case. That would be part of that as well. I'm hearing 600 from the state and then the formula for the city. Yes. Okay. Yeah. And again, like I said, if the state, if you get a formal agreement, then that can be part of your justification as well. If we meet the formula, we don't need a waiver. Correct. Unless we have to work something out different with the state. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Correct. And then if we made the access point on McGrathiana, if we narrowed that less than 40. or right at 40, yeah. 240, we wouldn't need the waivers either. Yeah, 40, and then I think you can, I think with the curb cut, with the radial flares, it's like, I want to say it's like 90 feet in industrial. So it ends up being pretty wide at the curb. You can check it out. Yeah, so you may be able to, if you can't make it work, then obviously the waiver's another option. Is that like termination of radii to radar? Yeah, the radial flares, I think it's like 20 for an industrial. You can get up to 20 feet on each, 20-foot radius on each, and then where it ends, it would be your 40. So you can check that out and see. We're interested in particularly the citation. I guess that's probably a state design, but an ad-grade entrance and not an up-and-over entrance. Yeah, I think because it's a driveway and not like a street, that would be a waiver as well because you're not conforming to the engineering standard drawings. A waiver from you yes from the city. Yeah, so because driveways typically Have an entrance apron, but that's a zone. That's a zoning ordinance requirement as well. Yes So it's a waiver to that Yeah, correct. Yeah, and then the On the Postponement you identify the release of easement And then you have note 23 three which requires us to denote you know that that's been resolved prior to building building permit and obviously we'll we need to do since there are facilities there we need to do development to relocate and have those facilities relocated so we'd like to go ahead and move forward with that being conditioned upon the building permit because we're going to have to do some infrastructure work to get that done. Tony, the legacy trail runs directly behind this property. Right. Is there no interest in an access for the, I mean, I'm assuming that you You guys want people to come use the place? Just extend a path up to our facility? I mean, if it were me and I was building this, I'd be like there's 150,000 people a year on the trail. They might want to come up and use your business. It's a direct access. It could be employees, whoever gets it. We're connecting to the industrial park. So, I mean, there's some real connectivity there if they're interested in that. We don't have a requirement for that, but to me it would make sense. Probably would be up to our tenants, so we'll have to kind of coordinate that with them. I mean, there is a trailhead back there. People can get there. It could be a one-way. We don't want public coming in, but certainly staff would probably take advantage of it. So, I mean, it's not like we're having a gate or anything, but there would be a gate. So this is distribution, not commercial? I got you. I got you. I got you. So it would be more for – I got you. I got you. It makes sense. Okay. Yeah, I was confused as to what the use was, so I was like, you know, what's the – It's not a grocery store. It's a delivery. Yeah. Oh, it is. Okay, yeah. Well, good. Well, yeah, you may want to make that connection. You could, if you were concerned with people using it the wrong way, you could gate it. Yeah. As long as employees had access. But that's – That's not a requirement. That's just a – there's a trailhead nearby. People can take McGrathiana. But that's a nice connection there. Obviously, we'd like approval from this group. most of our, the large majority of our comments are denoted and correct. But the waivers obviously would require, if we don't need waivers, if we can work that out internally, we'd like that option. And I think the easement conflict would be resolved with a note that we typically have on the plan that would move it forward. And that's currently in process right now. We're in communication with all the utilities and getting the Mylar sign for that. Can you clarify the intent of the smaller building up near your ponds? Yes, that's potentially a future operation. So it's not firm right now of exactly what that is. Even our client doesn't have a firm use of it right now. but that is standard for this prototype. So I guess some questions. Are there any specific questions beyond what we've talked about? Yeah, I got one. On the McGrathian Parkway, when we talked about the entrances, it looks like there's a gatehouse, I guess the plan south side of it. along that gatehouse in the middle, is that like a painted delineator between the entrance and the exit, or is that like a raised median? It's painted. It is painted? Okay. And then as far as your gates, access gates, I'm assuming the whole property is access controlled, so you would have a gate on Citation Boulevard right at the top of that bend and then on each of the other entrances besides the gatehouse one? That's correct. Thank you. The access off citation is the – I don't know if I'm reading this right. Is the sidewalk – where's the sidewalk crossing for that access? Is that back outside of the radius? What's the intention of – Yes. I believe so. We can get with our engineers and – And is it primarily like semi-truck entrance? It is correct. So the only thing I would be worried about there is that it's a really – it's a wide access. It allows them to come in there relatively hot. So just making sure that – because they're not looking that way when they're making that turn generally, and they don't have enough room to straighten out before they get there. So that's – Yes, and there is a deceleration lane that's coming into that as well. Right, right. But it's still just, you know, they're going to go as fast as the design lets them go. And big radiuses don't tell them to slow down. So you can tighten your radius. Generally, we want the pedestrian on the corner so they can see them when they're making that crossing. And people will likely cross right there unless they're in a wheelchair. They'll go up and use the ramps. So, you know, what we don't want to design is something that isn't conducive to that kind of safety. So just consider those things and try to think of how is this going to be used. what's the, you know, big trucks don't stop as fast. You know what I mean? Like, you know, we're relying on the driver safety, and, you know, that varies. So it's kind of like the U-turn thing, right? You don't want to make U-turns, but once they leave that shop, they'll do whatever they want to do. I mean, you can't control that, and it's the same under this condition. You can control it by design, but you can't control it by behavior. Okay, we can work through those. Yes. Yeah. Just Tony's question about the easements. Is that something we leave to the discussion point? Or, because I'm not, I don't know, I guess I don't know how that's usually handled as far as there's an easement to be released. Yeah, there's not a whole lot of discussion. It was three lots. There were easements created to address the three lots. We're consolidating the three lots. The easements go away. We have to do a little work to accommodate the utility company's facilities that they have in place, and it's kind of a chicken and the egg. We have to get those facilities relocated and an easement assigned to them and an easement released kind of all concurrent. We're working through it now, but not being the current property owner, we have to get some docs signed and then go get those plans in to remove that. power infrastructure that's really the one that's so uh put the city of lexington and lexington equine for the property owners if we've had phone calls with them and they've understand where we're coming from happy for us to do it because we're just kind of moving the power back um and at our cost it's just uh it is some some paperwork and some some liability of getting everything done and then these guys won't let us do it until we get that signed by them so it's just been and checking anything in there. When you said you were working with utility companies, you're working with Debbie Barnett through Water Quality, right? Yes, we've released. Yes, for the release. So we've worked with Water, Windstream, and then LGE. Okay. She usually does all that works with that too. So, I mean, I just want to make sure you're working with her so she can get it through the council. Okay. Great. One more thing. I forgot to mention. So the grading you're doing along the Gratheona at Plan South, is that – so basically we're trying to get streetlight infrastructure there, but there's a lot of rock, and that was one of my basically note. Are you all going to be regrading? Is there any opportunity where we could get – essentially get that installed as part of the plan, like the conduit bases, and then we would come in and do the maintenance operation, install the streetlights? But I don't know if you're all regrading. If you're going to be regrading, bring some of that rock down. might be an opportunity yeah we can definitely look into that okay just something we can discuss it wouldn't it's not a requirement but it'd be something yeah yeah we're doing quite a bit of blasting on okay yeah there's a lot of rock yeah that was our problem yeah as well so okay okay yeah okay that'd be great thank you we would put the conduit in the pole bases and then and then we'd come in and work ku and they would do the rest and then from then on we maintain and operate. Okay. Yeah. Royal Springs. Who was it? Oh yeah. Quick question. Okay. Dumpster or compactor? I don't know. At the location. Compactor. Yes. There should be one. We can check. Yes. Who do I reach out to? Chase. We'll call Chase and get on the next agenda. Thank you. So short of not needing, if we don't need a waiver, we'd really appreciate getting an approval today conditioned upon the waiver requirements. Yeah, I was going to say, given the number of conditions and you could get these cleaned up, find that out by a sub-vision committee. Then we still got to come back here. That's true. We don't get a burden, so that's another one. You're right, right. Pleasure of the bulls. Good. I think given the number of conditions, the staff's recommendation is appropriate, unless anybody disagrees with that and wants to make an argument as to why we should. Or a suggestion, I guess, would be the proper term. Okay. Staff's recommendation is for postponement. So the motion is for postponement of PLN and MJDP 2637, Coldstream Research Campus, unit for lots 23 24 and 31 coach dream farm SKY 3 amended with the addition of note 36 approval of the Royal Springs Aquifer committee so moved at a waiver for the entrance entrance apron along for the driveway along citation for the are as well. So three waivers? Yeah. If they're wanting to be at grade then. Okay. All right. In addition to that third waiver, so moved. I didn't know if we needed to add 14 under the conditions pending waiver. Okay. Okay. All right. We'll do this again. Yeah, please reread it. All right. Okay. So the motion is for the approval of PLN MJDP 2637 Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 4, Lots 2324. Oh, I'm sorry. So the motion is for postponement of PLN MJDP 2637 Coldstream Research Campus, campus unit 4 lots 23 24 and 31 cold stream farm sky 3 amended with the addition of note 36 approval of the world springs aquifer committee a third waiver for the proposed entrance off of citation boulevard and then the addition of night note 14 provided the Planning Commission's approval of all waivers so mute okay all in favor anyone post motion passes thank you All right, moving along to the next plan. MJDP 2638 Maple Leaf Subdivision Lot 3, the Marathon Service Center. This is located at 3100 Maple Leaf Drive. The purpose of the plan is to remove and replace the main fuel service and convenience building and replace 2,940 square feet of impervious pavement with permeable pavers. So this is the overall site. This is Manowar Boulevard out here. This is Maple Leaf. This is just southwest of or south of Todd's Road. The subject lot is the corner, which is the existing C-Store. There's an entrance off of Maple Leaf into the development, which is the main access for this lot. They're showing a slightly larger building footprint than what was there before. and then I believe there's an existing drive-through, but they're showing drive-through wraparound. The building actually goes closer to the property line here than it did before, and they're showing a drive-through window there and a drive-through window there, so in the back and on the side. Under requirements not met, number one, denote all building paving signs, fences, walls, and retaining walls shall require a separate review and building permit from the division building inspection number two denote no building permit shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is certified by the secretary of the planning commission number three dumpster location will not work with this plan and I believe it was here and I believe now it's here in the drive-through lane. Number four, upload open space exhibit to Acela and provide open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number five, correct title block to match staff report. Number six, use standard site statistics box and include data for entire development. Number seven, depict north arrow on vicinity map. Number eight, clarify proposed building footprint. there's just a lot of thick lines where the outline of the building is it's kind of hard to tell what's building and what's other line work number 9 use standard symbology for parking spaces and stacking number 10 depict adjacent property boundaries with dashed lines and include owner information number 11 depict topography with contour intervals of 2 feet number 12 label cross sections 13 verify commission certification 14 denote floor area ratio and lot coverage 15 denote parking totals in compliance with article 12-8E of the zoning ordinance 16 remove all proposed parking between the canopy and the street the existing can remain so I believe that is this bay of parking I think the existing starts basically here and runs along the maple leaf. Sorry, I lost my place. Oh, there we go. 17 depict internal pedestrian walkways, including a sidewalk connecting new building to the existing right-of-way that conform with Article 166A3 and 166C2 of the zoning ordinance. Number 18, depict bicycle parking Number 19, depict VUA perimeter buffer along southern and western property boundaries Number 20, depict interior landscaping for VUA that conforms with Article 18.3b of the zoning ordinance Number 21, to mention a standard parking stall, handicapped stall, and some areas of the walkway in front of the store Number 22, depict all existing and proposed easements. Number 23, correct label for storm easement parallel to Manowar Boulevard, mislabeled as sanitary. Number 24, depict storm and sanitary existing on lot 3. Number 25, submit tree inventory map with registered landscape architect stamp or ISA certified arborist name certification number on the map. Number 26, submit tree preservation plan that complies with Article 26.4C of the zoning ordinance. There are no waivers requested at this time. Under design considerations, number 1, see all Acela comments provided by the Division of Engineering. Number 2, canopy pump area in the drawing looks to be closer to the parking area than is actually existing. Number 3, verify basin size for this development. and under plan questions or concerns number one discuss design of open air patio is it enclosed by a fence wall etc and that's this location right here it's labeled as an open air patio but then it shows this line with a break and this line with what appears to be a gate or a door so we just want some clarification on that number two discuss multiple drive-through windows in the same stacking areas. As I mentioned before, there's a drive-through window noted here, and then also further back in the stacking lane. Number three, discuss existing food truck area as it relates to the parking shown, and I believe that is in this area up here. And we do recommend postponement. This time, there's questions regarding numerous cleanup items and concerns regarding addition of the VUA in the front of the building on a corner lot in a B6P zone and drive-through circulation around the building. If the plan is approved, the following sign-offs and conditions should be considered. Engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, fire, waste management, water quality's approval of the cap requirements, and then to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met and with that i'll open it up to the committee you can remove environmental quality number six anything else from the committee Tim Watcherball for the property owners. Everything, understand clearly with most of your points. A few I have questions about for clarification. Item number four on the requirements. I'm not familiar with that open exhibit area you're asking for. What's the question? I'm not familiar with that open area exhibit. That's Article 20. Article 20 is supposed to show a plan that shows where your common space, vegetated space, and usable space is. Okay, and you don't think that's demonstrated there or not? It's not. Okay. I'll have to look that up and see what the difference is. Okay. Item number 10 on the property, that's a business there, but it's closed. It's been out of business for some time. So how do we get the owners, or why do you need an owner? The zoning ordinance requires you to list the owner of all adjacent properties. I understand that, but they're closed. How do I get the owner? PVA. Oh, just do the property one? Put it in PVA and whether it's closed or not? Yeah. Okay. All right. That's good. Yeah. Okay. Item number 11, the contour lines, it says two feet. I put them at five feet under 21-6A. Item number four, it said five feet. That's for a preliminary development plan. If you keep reading in the ordinance, it gets you to final development plan, and final development planes require topos at two feet two feet okay no problem okay on the parking compliance the parking spaces meet the requirements now for the area of the building but if you're saying we need to remove those five spaces that says diagonal in that top left corner where the food truck is yeah is that the corner spaces you're saying he needs to require parking spaces meet meet the requirement now uh but you're saying we can't have those five spaces there where it's a b6p zone top left corner on a corner lot it doesn't allow vua between the principal structure and the the right-of-way so So the ordinance changed, and so the existing parking is nonconforming, but that means you can't expand the nonconformity. So you can't add parking spaces between the structure and the right way. Got you. Okay, so I can just correct that by taking that diagonal parking out and put it vertical the way it is now. Yeah, just leave the pavement the way it is now. Yeah, and that will only be two spaces short then, I believe. There's no more parking requirements. There's actually a maximum parking number now for B6P. For the entire site? Okay, good. That's a good deal. All right. One other. I think that covers because I can do everything that you have on there. Over on design considerations, the basin, I was not aware that that site had a water basin for it, And that's why I put in the permeable area for water absorption. When you submit for your land disturbance permit, because you're doing new construction, you'll do a calculation that will verify if you're increasing impervious or not. and part of that might be evaluating the existing stormwater basin, just verifying that what was designed for that is not exceeded by this new construction. Okay, yeah. I could not find any drawings or design that shows any basin anywhere on that lot. The lot's basically paved and level. Right. I think it's the one across the road and down a ways, the large detention pond. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's way off. I didn't know that affected it over there. Okay, so by replacing 27% of the now paved area with permedia stone, that would solve that problem? You'll have to just submit the calculation form to verify what you're proposing. Okay. All right. Good. All right. I agree that the, I don't like, never did like that wraparound. I'm satisfying the client. I want to tell them you can't do that because I don't like it, and they'll go along with what I tell them. Well, you can have a drive-through. I think part of the confusion was. The two windows? Yes, two windows. And then as you get around the back corner, like the front corner is at an angle, but that other corner closure is very, I'm afraid someone's going to hit the building. Right. The idea they had on the two windows was have them open at different times. One end, like up the end where that patio, they decided they didn't want that after all because there's going to be traffic up against it and people sitting out there, you're going to have fumes and all that. I told them it's a bad idea. so they agreed to take that off. And, again, I still don't like the wraparound myself. I don't know exactly their reasoning. They have different AM and PM window. I don't understand what they're going after there, but I just seem to not have it. I think we're okay with the drive-through. Maybe if they can consolidate it to one window, that makes a little more sense. Yeah, what I wanted to do was take out that end window and then come straight out rather than make a turn up the side of the building there because it's really tight. You get one of those big ramp trucks in there, you know, you're going to tear up something. Right. I think that would be a better option. And then the dumpster location, we can't have the solid waste truck going through the drive-through. Right? Okay. Okay, that'll be corrected once we take out that patio area. That'll move the line over about 12 or 13 feet, and then they have a direct access to the dumpster or the truck. Yeah, you'll have to get with solid waste about that. Okay. Yeah, currently, like they mentioned earlier, the dumpsters are currently on the other side of the building where we just drive in and get them and move on to the next one. This one here, I'll be honest with you, the safest place I see to put them is right up there, those five parking places are there. Well, if we remove the, we could have it actually beside the building, but I don't know, can you come into it off that main driveway there? In other words, if you took out that window on the bottom right corner there and that lane of vehicles, could you put it right there and come hit it at an angle? We just, I mean, we don't want our dumpster enclosures around drive-thrus, period. Right. You know, especially like this, the accessibility and the entering and exiting the property. I see some kind of note over about pavers. You don't want our truck on pavers. I mean, it's going to tear them all to pieces. What you're saying is if you take that window out that's closest to that access easement, now that might give you an area to put the dumpster right along. No driveway there. So the drive-thru would be gone, and your drive-thru would exit out onto the – Right. But anyway, yeah, so this right side of the building, page right side of the building potentially. Is that right? Just get with me afterwards, and we'll look at it. Okay. That's good. and as far as the I told them the food truck would have to go anyway but you know they'll bring it back later they always do so but for now that's why it wasn't under drawing because I told them they couldn't have that there and you know they understand that but as always they'll bring it back I think they always do every one of these service stations I've had to deal with they all do the same thing you know they say take it out for a while and then a few months later they bring them back so but if we put the dumpster there that might prevent that so that's everything that I have clear on all the corrections revisions and so on but I have anything else all right I believe the staff's recommendation is for postponement so So the motion is for postponement of PLN, MJDP 2638, Maple Leaf Subdivision, Lot 3, Marathon Service Center, amended with the removal of environmental quality sign-off. So moved. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? The motion passes. All right. Thank you. Okay, we're going to continue on down the agenda. We're going to MJDP 2639 Lexmark International Section 1, Lots 9 and 10. This is located right here off in Newtown. This is Freight Boulevard. We get a better picture. So you have Freight Boulevard coming in for your access onto the property, Newtown Pike. Right here, here's our new building, parking for large vehicles and parking out in the front. This is to depict a building of 28,915 square feet. So requirements not met. Change note number two to read no building permits shall be issued unless until a final development plan is certified by the Secretary of the Planning Commission. Denote landscaping shall comply with the Newtown Pike Corridor Ordinance 85-2008. Denote date of review and recommendation of the Royal Springs Water Supply Protection Committee. Provide dumpster enclosures and concrete pad specifications. Combine site statistics for lots 9 and 10. Since this is going to, you're going to have to do a consolidation plat and the building's going over the property, so we might as well just update lot number 7 per MJDP 2491. That one was just signed here recently, so we need to get that corrected. Correct commission certification. Correct note numbering on notes 15 through 18. Remove extra site statistics box. next to bearings and distances, complete outdoor lighting plan, addition of 20-foot building line, dimension handicap space and driveway flares. Combine notes 16 and 30. Provide vehicle use interior landscaping required, proposed, and ILA tree canopy required, proposed for lot 10. Upload an open space exhibit to a cell that matches site statistics box. Provide bicycle parking that complies with the zoning ordinance. Depict all existing and proposed easements. Depict tree protection area to scale. At this time, there's no waivers that have been requested. Design considerations. See all Excel notes by the Division of Engineering. Move sidewalk off the curb to increase pedestrian comfort. design does not preserve greatest number of trees, plan questions and concerns, discuss with a vehicle use screening, discuss the underground detention in the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Plan, update a right-of-way dedication of freight boulevard and corresponding sidewalk infrastructure, what is the plan for the relocation of storm line, Discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. Address the sanitary sewer capacity and access. Clarify notes number 19 and 14. Will there be a fence or a gate on lot 9? Tree removal justification is not explicit and proposed mitigation is not sufficient. At this current time, the staff recommends postponement with the following sign-offs. engineering, traffic, landscape, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, division of fire, division of waste management, division of water quality, the U.S. Postal Service, and correct all note deficiencies listed as required within not met herein. I'll open it to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions or if anyone can be removed from the list. I guess one thing that didn't get captured in these requirements is the private sanitary in this area and private streets and how those will be addressed okay I'll let the applicant he might have a better understanding good morning my name is Greg Smorstad with banks engineering so let's see we will get the requirements not met we'll clean a lot of those items up no problem but just to move back to the questions or concerns the width of the vehicular use screening all those should be at least eight feet in width which I believe meets the rules underground detention in the Royal Springs protection area so this plan has been submitted to Royal Springs it has not been heard by them yet. I know in the past they're not thrilled about underground detention being in the wellhead protection area. However, we were able to use underground detention in this lot up here. So we'll have to go through that process and see what they say about that. An update on the right-of-way dedication. So we are finally actually taking some steps moving forward on dedicating Freight Boulevard and Setzer Way. The thing that is holding us up right now is we got a sidewalk plan approved by Bike Ped and Traffic, but we have to actually do construction plans and get those sidewalks built before the dedication of the right-of-way can happen so we're in the process of doing those plans right now so currently the sanitary sewer out there is private and so at this point in time the sanitary sewer for this new proposed building will be private as well I think there are some conversations that need to be had about what will happen once we go through the right-of-way dedication process and if that sanitary will remain private or become public so just quickly going back to the public streets there actually you're going through the public works office or the CAO policy and all that you finally got that worked out it was finally moving yes so it's not completely worked out yet but we're taking steps towards it basically just like you said the infrastructure completing that and then you can then then the plat will be ready to be we've got the sidewalk infrastructure and then we also have some coordination to do with KU there are existing street lights that KU doesn't currently own so there's some coordination I don't know yeah did you all cool well did you verify the pavement construction and everything I I believe that the cores have been taken and submitted, so I think everything's fine with that. I haven't heard anything to the contract. Where did the cores go to? Probably went to Commissioner's Office or maybe the capital side of engineering, and I'm in new development. So I'm not in the loop, so I'm just asking questions. We'll check and we'll see where they went. clarify notes we'll get those cleaned up there is a fence and there is a note on the plan that says that the gates will have a click to enter system for the fire department and then the the last thing the tree removal justification I guess is not explicit and proposed mitigation is not sufficient so as you can see kind of a third of our property of the two lots is taken up by the legacy trail and then there's a large shrub row that kind of is in between the legacy trail and the proposed development so we wanted to try and keep all of that stuff that we could to kind of separate the legacy trail from this development. Unfortunately, there ended up being just, I don't know, eight or nine trees kind of down in this corner that met the definition of significant trees. They're larger than 12 inches in diameter that need to be removed. So I guess, Eric, maybe I can get with you and we can have some discussions about what would be an appropriate mitigation, you know, for the trees that we have to remove. I guess my main thought, that stretch of the legacy trail is smoking. Yeah. So anything that's healthy there would be great to keep, especially those larger oaks there. I mean, I know there's a dead one. Yeah. I mean, I'm fine with that not being there, but that was my main concern. I mean, if we take those out and then you mitigate it by putting in two-inch caliper trees, we won't get that benefit of shade on it. So, anyway, that was one thought. And then just, you know, 276 inches being removed and then 12 trees proposed. Let's just talk about bumping that up. Yeah, and so the one other thing about this site is not only do we have the legacy trail that runs through there, we've got an enormous amount of overhead electric. So we've got it on the south side, on the west side, on the north side. So we've kind of boxed in there. So I'm happy to work with you to provide as many trees as we can. Let's try to run out there and just see what it looks like because one option would be to really heavily tree both sides of the trail. That would be a great mitigation. I mean I think that from our perspective that would improve that site and then we can see what we can do with the – Well, and that might help us meet whatever the Newtown Springs corridor planting stuff. Maybe it will help us meet that as well. Totally. Well, and filter that water as well. So, okay. Yeah, just get with me. Okay. All right. Thank you all. Well, I got one last question. Do you want to speak to the storm line relocation that kind of runs west to east here? I mean, just make sure you're aware of that. Sure, yeah. We've got it noted on the plan that it's going to be relocated. It's in this area right here. So it comes from a couple storm boxes that are on this west road. It comes out, and there's a headwall right here. And it basically then just sheet flows down to this point on the site. There's a low spot in an inlet where the water is picked up and goes. So it will likely just be rerouted up and then come across and then headwall out somewhere in that area to take the same path. So we'll have to figure out what we're going to do with that underground detention and coordinate it with that. I got a question for you. Can you show me where you were indicating where the gates are going to be? Is that on both entrances? Yes. Currently, there is a gate across this entrance right here. Okay, that's the current. And a gate across this entrance right here. Gotcha. And on the right side of that stretcher, too, where you have that 19-foot, is that a one-way? It is, yes. That's a one-way drive, and then there's also an overhead door in this side of the building where vehicles can drive in, and then they'll be able to drive out on this side as well. And then you're going to have a fence, right, that's going to surround the property? Yes, that's correct. And does that fence basically connect up to the left side of the structure? So the fence starts in this corner, comes around the parking gate here, comes all the way down the front across this entrance around, and then back up to the building. Gotcha. Here. So the only way I can access the left side of that structure is from Newtown Pike if I was going to walk up to it. Oh. Yeah, I guess so. Got you. Thank you. Anybody have anything else? Greg? Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. It doesn't pertain to the part that you're talking about, but it does appear down at the very bottom of the overall. It looks like there's a sanitary sewer that's coming from the YMCA that is cutting across the building. So you just want to be aware. I just don't want that to get lost anywhere and pulled forward into another plan. Okay. So just be aware of that. All right. What lot is it on? Is it on Abby's lot? Oh. Lot 7. Oh, okay. Yeah. Well, I think that one needs to be updated per the plan. Yes, Lot 7 needs to be updated. So I think they've moved some buildings and maybe released something. Maybe. Oh, not yet. Okay. I got a quick question. Will there be a dumpster or a compactor on site? There will be a dumpster. I think maybe it somehow got on a layer that didn't print, but it will be back in the back area, back here. So I'll get you dumpster specs and details on that. it'll be underground all right anybody else have anything great we're good yeah all right so staff's recommendation is for postponement. So the motion is for postponement of PLN MJDP 2639. Lexmark International section 1 lots 9 and 10. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. all right moving along to Rory's favorite plan on the agenda MJDP 2640 Patch and Wilkes unit 2 lot 10 amended this is located at 1811 Winchester Road the purpose of the plan is to depict a group residential development with eight multifamily buildings in 288 units so we've seen some recent development in this area with other development plans this is winchester road to the bottom left on the plan this is the proposed charleston drive that comes over and connects with a roundabout to thunder stick and patch and wilkes drive So this is the existing town homes with the lake in this area. This lot was the one that was recently approved with a Kroger as another Patch and Wilkes development and then more recently we've had a single family residential development come through up here. So this is depicting, let's see I think we've got a close up. So we've got eight multifamily structures surrounding the interior parking, surface parking, and then a clubhouse and a pool in this area. There's a dog park on the corner. And then we've got some floodplain running along the plan north between this and the single family development on the other side. That's all we've got as far as the graphics go. On requirements not met, number one, denote all buildings, paving signs, fences, and walls, and retaining walls require a separate review and building permit from the division building inspection prior to construction. Number two, denote structures built in areas of alluvial soils will have a foundation and footer detail prepared by a licensed professional engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. three, denote this development contains a portion of the West Hickman Conservation Greenway corridor as shown on the 2002 Greenway Master Plan. Maintenance of the Greenway shall be the responsibility of the developer, an owner association, or the owner of the parcel which includes the Greenway. Number four, label the center line of the blue line stream. Number five, upload open space exhibit to Acela and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Number six, denote the purpose of the plan. This is a preliminary but I'd like to see what the plan's about. Number seven, depict access points on lot eight. There is a, or there's a, what's it? Yes, there's planned access here, and then there's also roughly in this area an access point into the Kroger, and we've had some discussion about lining up those access points. Number eight, denote written scale. Number nine, denote all adjacent property owners. Number ten, depict height of proposed retaining walls. There's retaining wall depicted here, and then one along the rear along the greenway as well. number 11 depict construction access from Charleston Drive number 12 verify correct Commission certification 13 denote height of buildings and feet 14 remove VUA excuse me remove VUA in front of principal structures adjacent to Charleston Drive and that's primarily just where this portion is in front of the building plane and this portion right here. 15 clarify line work for floodplain and floodplain setbacks. We just weren't really clear what everything is up here. It's a little bit confusing with the line work and the shading and the labels and might be one or two things mislabeled but we're not sure. 16 clarify building coverage in four areas in the site statistics and building typicals. there's just some questions in the typicals what the numbers represent if that's totals for that that type of building so we just we just need some clarification on on that 17 depict direct pedestrian access to patch and Wilkes Drive this area up here 18, remove retaining wall and building from vegetated buffer and floodplain. Number 19, depict bicycle parking per Article 1612. Number 20, dimension all driveways and walkways. Number 21, depict all existing easements. And number 22, commercial driveway entrances shall comply with standard drawing 307-2. There are no waivers requested at this time. under design considerations see all acela comments provided by the division of engineering number two address sanitary sewer capacity and number three what is the stormwater management proposal under planned questions and concerns number one discuss aligning access points with access points on lot eight and the access road number two discuss how pedestrians will access the proposed Kroger on lot eight. Number three, discuss the status of the LOMAR. Number four, discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. And then finally, we do recommend approval with conditions, sign-offs from engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, fire, waste management, water quality's approval of the cap requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and then finally, to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met. And that will turn it over to the committee. Yeah, I mean, I just think back to note number 15 relating to the floodplain, the setbacks, any buffers. There's also a building in the shaded area, building C, I believe that is, the third one on the top right there. Yep, right there. Just a lot of confusion up there needs clarified, and if that building needs – I just don't know what that is. So maybe the LOMER could be part of that explanation, but it just seems extremely sloppy the way the plan reads right now. Rory? Rory Keeley, the partners. Yeah, we got the wrong thing shaded. That will clear up a lot of this stuff. I believe he grabbed the floodplain building line. Back at the office, I got a whole new plan on my desk to review when I get there. and you'll be getting that before next Thursday even if it's a setback your building is in it yes I know that the top right building there has got to get rotated as we go forward that was rotated well he's got to get out of the that setback yeah yeah As far as the clomer, I can see if I can get a status as where we're at. The clomer itself will not necessarily affect the shaded area here. The clomer is only taking care of the Patch and Wilkes Drive crossing. So nothing from the road coming up this way is supposed to be affected. we believe that the stormwater management let's see the stormwater management quality will be taken care of on site quantity as in the overall studied for Patch and Wilkes and essentially from the wall that we're showing on this development to the existing sanitary sewer easement that will be at the back of the unit 3 single family lots we don't think anything will be disturbed in through there that will remain open and vegetated, and that will take care of a lot of the... I know that we do this sometimes, but will the pipe be visible across the footprint of the sewer pipe? No. Okay. No. No. I believe that the depth there... Well, okay, and I'll tell you, the proposed crossing for the sanitary sewer, We're not going to hit it at that location. We're actually going to go down the existing sewer and pick it up at a different manhole. It's actually to the right of Patchenworks Drive. So with the street construction plans that they're working on now, we'll come out of that manhole below the road, come across the corner, dog park area to pick up these apartment buildings, and then continue over to the B6P apartment complex. all owner the areas will be owned by the property owner we're not looking to dedicate anything through this area through the city you know our commercial piece plus the single family being all divided up item 3 the denoting of the conservation greenway I just want to clarify that none of the greenway is on this property it's off-site we can add that note but it does not affect lot 10 here I'm 12 I do have a correct Commission certification as this is preliminary I have to go to the full plan commission correct yeah okay we that's just kind of been our standard note okay just to make sure depending on how it's approved that it's basically kind of a reminder for you and us that when we get the certification to go back and make sure that we've got the right one okay so it's yeah nothing that I have to do all right let's see I call it in quantity the sanitaries are coming in lower oh aligning with Kroger's. Our guys have graded this four times. They can well, by hand, because we're old. But yes, they have worked on this for several months and we've had many different layouts and so we were not able to get the grading that we needed with the alignment. That's why we made sure we had them all set enough to get the entrances put in. We'll add them. But it's 100-foot offset, I believe, on opposite sides of the road. I want to verify that's the correct dimension. It varies by speed limit. Yeah, it's probably 35 for here, I would guess. Speed, okay. Yeah, just check that. Yeah, I think when Kroger came, it's the only annoyance is, I think the justification for not putting in it, for making it at gray was that it was going to be the other entrance was going to align. So I guess that was just like a – Our site's got 30 feet of fall. That's why you see walls at the front and the back. And we'll get the heights added to this as well. So, Rory, I think this brings up the issue of pedestrian safety and the crossings here. I mean, the road's 35 miles an hour. That road is, I don't know, what is that, 1,000 feet? How far is it from that roundabout to Winchester Road? So the expectation is that people won't cross the road, and they will. They're going to cross at all your accesses to Kroger. They're going to do it on a 35-mile-an-hour condition that has a two-way left turn lane with no separation for any kind of pedestrian refuge. So you're going to end up at busy times with a lot of blind spots. Think of like lower Winchester Road where people get hit a lot. It's because there's cars waiting to turn, and then another car moves into that position, and there's somebody standing there. They run them over. So we're really, by design, this is pretty dangerous for pedestrians. We're creating a scenario that introduces a lot of people into a crossing with no attempt to mitigate those collisions, other than you should go here or here, and people just don't do that. And so I think we need to figure that out, and I think that could be mitigated in some way. Again, I know our cross-sections don't show that, Vaughn. It may require some kind of, I don't know, maybe Charleston Drive could have some additional islands put in the two-way left turn lane or in that transition area. That's the other part. So in that transition area, especially during busy times, people will accelerate, right, if they're going around a car. It's just everything about this is not conducive to safe crossings. And then you're crossing and there's no way that they line up. So if you were trying to make that crossing, there's no ADA compliance. So it would be jump the curb. There's just a lot wrong with all of that. And so I get it. But before, you all did say we're going to line these up. That's why we don't want the no-grade entrance. I mean, I get it. Your grades don't work. But that's not our problem. That's your problem. You used that justification before. Make it work. I mean, I don't understand why that's – you knew the lay of the land. You knew the need to be retaining wall. The contours didn't change. So it's like the expectation was that those things would line up. So I think there needs to be more discussion about that, honestly, and how we're going to mitigate that because we're just building more of the same scenario in what's going to be a high-traffic, high-speed environment and expect something different to occur. I just don't think it will. So I'm not sure how we mitigate that, but, like, you know, we can't just say the idea is they go use the roundabout or they use the crossing down there. It has to be something more, in my opinion. So, to that, what do you think? I don't think 35 is high speed. Well, let me tell you the difference between 25 and 35. When you get hit by a car is... 40% more chance of dying under that condition. It also affects the time that it takes you to cross. It also affects the time that people approach you. There's all kinds of different acceleration equations. I mean, we can get into the technical part of it, but the reality is at 25, you've got a much higher survivability than at 35 because of physics so it is high speed but when it comes to a car hitting a person but are you trying to take our collector speeds down now what I'm trying to do is mitigate the crossings to reasonable distances and one crossing at a time I try to change the speed limit I'm trying to get a street design that allows for safe crossings at those speeds and that is your all's purview in in this case. So don't move the discussion to that. What we're saying is this is a 35-hour speed zone. You've created offset intersections, and you've created wide crossings that don't line up. So you need to mitigate the safety concerns that we have because of the design that you put before us. I think the big is the generation of ped traffic to the Kroger. I would imagine people will want to walk over there. And to this point, nobody's going to walk to the roundabout. so there's any way to mitigate it. It's easier to do it if everything lines up across because that's one point, especially because the Kroger is built in such a way that Kroger is built in such a way where it's got that nice pedestrian area to get people to the front entrance. So that will be where people will want to get to. Like I said, when they be lined up, then we know that this is a very likely spot they'll cross and we can focus on this area. And now it just makes it more complicated. There's a way to mitigate those, but I think it would be good to see a proposal for that. Okay, knowing people are going to go from here to there, how would I feel comfortable getting from here and there? If they did align, what would you guys be wanting done there? Medians, crosswalks? Well, I think what you could do, like if you're going to leave your accesses where they are, right, and we need to see where the Kroger accesses are, I think you could put in medians in locations that would allow for what essentially is one stage crossing at a time, right? Like you're not striping them, you're not marking them, but you're giving up a refuge for people to cross one lane with one direction of impact and then look the other way and wait. So they're not trying to manage two cars going 35-plus miles an hour and make a run for it, right? So it gives them a place to sit, but they won't get run over by a car, so they can do it in two stages. So that's one option. The other option would be is at your entrances and exits to narrow the street cross-section to a manageable crossing distance Whatever that would be again No less than 20 feet, but there could be some way to mitigate it with bulb outs at those locations as well So I think it's really we need to see where those other access points are on this plan And then kind of talk through what that is and then work with engineering and fire to make sure that it meets Their needs as well So I don't know that we can come up with a solution today, but I think there's options under this condition that could make it safer. That won't be heavy lifts by any means. We just have to coordinate with everybody to make it happen. So. That's my opinion. I just know, to be honest, if we don't think about this now, I'm going to get a call in three years to solve it. Yeah, that's the thing. and then it becomes an afterthought and it's just not the same. So we should really – That's my perspective is like this – yeah, this – yeah, we'll get calls about this because people will use it. And I think now's the time. I don't think these are big asks. These are just health, safety, welfare. And it's in line with all our current policies and things, so. Well, that will be fun. I'll take it back to the engineers. They'll enjoy this. That's why I'm here. So you said Building C doesn't look like this. You said it's rotated already? Is that what I'm hearing? It should be, I think. Yeah, it will be when we submit the next one. So this is not final? This is not a final DP? No, and to a point, this is preliminary development plan. The property has been zoned so long that any development plan or subdivision plan over it has expired. So this is back as a preliminary. We can't build anything off of this. We get this through the system, get it approved, and the following month we'll be right back in here with the final, which will be for building. But it still has to meet the zoning ordinance. Well, yeah. Yeah, so the buildings and the wall need to be outside the floodplain. Yeah. Or I've got to go through waivers, which I don't want to do. I'm going to give you the heads up that capacity in the North Elkhorn area is very low for sewer. So with what you're proposing here I believe puts it into a potential wait list. So heads up. We're doing what we can but timing of certain projects have been pushed and everything else so just be aware of CTIMS and take a look at it. If you need to get an application in early to reserve, then be aware. Yes, because I was under the impression that we had had the majority of patch and wilks, everything that had been in 04, I think, turned in, had been within the system and accepted. If there's something that's already grandfathered, I might not be aware of that, so just double-check it with the tap-on desk and make sure. Okay. and make sure that because this plan appeared to be new from what I can see on my side of it. Yeah, a long time ago we had all of this. We actually had lots back by the school all approved. So I think we should have been grandfathered, but we'll check. If it's already been reserved, then you might be okay. But if not, then we're very low in the area. And then as well, there appears to be in our GIS a private sanitary sewer line that comes up about to the building that's touching the shaded area. That does not appear to be our responsibility, but it's showing in our GIS. So just be aware of that. And if you have any questions on it, let me know. It will be removed. It's not ours, so there's no easements. I don't believe for it. All right. All right. Anybody else have anything? Rory? No, I think I answered everything I had. All right. Staff's recommendation is for approval. So the motion is for approval of PLNMJDP 2640, Patchett Wilkes Unit 2, Lot 10 amended. with no changes so move all in favor see anyone opposed motion passes thank you Thank you. out off of Todd's Road. We have the street coming in here to the Carsons, and this is a piece of property right here that we just had a zone change for from the R1T to B1 so that they could have additional parking in this area. So this is to add the parking and then to revise the layout of the townhomes. these townhomes used to go up this direction and had a larger drive area for turnaround with taking and cutting this out for the parking it reconfigured the townhome layout on lot one so requirements not met correct note number 20 to read no building permit shall be issued unless until a final development plan is certified by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, addition of dumpster enclosure and concrete pad details to the plan, provide eight-foot landscape buffer between lot one, the R1T, and the adjacent R1D properties, update the open space exhibit to include lot one, denote construction access, addition of tree inventory note on plan, denote preliminary subdivision plan, Addition of crosswalks to parking and structure, dimension driveways and walkways, design considerations, see all Ocelo comments provided by the Division of Engineering, ensure stormwater management quality and quantity requirements are met, plan questions and concerns, discuss access and circulation for fire and waste management, Discuss easement conflict with townhomes. Discuss whether to include the townhomes on Lot 3. Discuss 18-foot access easement. Discuss how the driveways off of the access easement and sidewalk will be constructed. Discuss who will own and maintain the store monitor management area. Is this plan only for Lots 1 and 2? Correct. easement with the sanitary sewer the pump station manual discuss the development plan or plan for the Williams property needed to be amended with that there are questions regarding the access and circulation for fire and waste management that was part of the question at the time of the zone change was that this was to be worked out so we're at that point right now so yeah staff is recommending postponement with the sign-offs engineering traffic landscaping addressing Forester environmental quality bike and ped open space division of fire division of waste management division of water quality the United States Postal Service and then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met here on so I'm going to open it to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions or if anyone can be removed if not applicant thanks Cheryl Tony Barrett here on behalf of Anderson Andover Country Club LLC Anderson Communities I guess the ultimate concern right now is the circulation for fire and waste management. I've talked to Lieutenant Morgan briefly about it. I haven't talked to Scott directly about it, but we've got... turning movements that were accommodating their vehicles in the vicinity of buildings 15 and 16 where they would do a turnabout type maneuver and working through that with with them we've located the dumpster stop it back here so basically the vehicles would come in and dumpster would pick up and and then turn around in this vicinity and out. The fire truck, we initially had the vehicle coming up this way and then backing into that driveway and out with conversations with Lieutenant Morgan. We're going to further explore getting him closer and turning around in this intersection as well. So that's where we're going. We're working out those turning movements. I think we've got it, so we'll continue to work with the two fellows there and get those squared away. So with regard to the other comments. Lane, can you show us where the eight-foot landscape buffer needs to be increased between R1D and R1T? Yeah, I believe it's along there, yeah. Well, that's, yeah, back in the back. Right. Oh, yeah, those are R1D as well, yes. Yeah, well. Yeah, around the hole, around the hole. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Well, the VUA would be 8 foot as well, I guess. So we'll have to address that. Where it's purely a landscape buffer, I think we can reduce that to something 6 or 5 with a fence. So we'll explore that as well. But yeah, we'll have to address that. Open space exhibit. Boyd, I'll work with you and Eve on that. I'm not sure what we need to do for that, so we'll get that squared away. Denote preliminary subdivision plan. I've got that labeled as a preliminary subdivision plan, so I think we're good there. Some dimensions, some notes. something about is a lot the intent is to reflect the new parking lot for lot 2 and revise lot 1 we're not really addressing lot 3 the other townhouse area on this plan so at some point land disturbance permits that are affecting that are going to expire and you won't be able to do things on the right hand side without a final development plan because that is expired so our question was do you want lot three to be part of this and get it refreshed as a final development plan but that means that we're going to look at it yeah i know and i you know i mean if i have to If I have to bring it up to current, probably not. You're not ready to do that. Not ready to do that. So I'll have to talk to Anderson about how we address the grading land disturbance concern there. I think we're evaluating some modifications to that area that we'll come back with. but I'm not sure what the schedule or the full intent of that is at this point, so we'll have to work through that. So, okay. But was there any other specific? so you're good with i think we can delete the plan questions concerns number three and seven they're pretty much the same if you're saying hey we only want to amend lots one and two not three at the moment yes discuss 18 foot access easement what is that pertaining to Vaughn, is that your... Yeah, it's... You've got the mountain little curb and the 18-foot access. Yeah, those are just driveways, basically, for those two units. That's what we're proposing. I guess I didn't know if EMS had any issues with it. Oh, okay. We'll work those turning movements with fire and solid waste. Are these intended to be subdivided? Yes. Yeah, there's a plat that's been filed pending this plan. And then I had a question about, you've got the sidewalk that runs along the access easement. over to the path to the restaurant and those are just driveways that are right there normally you know on a public street we have a concrete apron which I don't guess you're gonna have here you'll just have asphalt for the whole thing but you're gonna want to I don't know I just see it all the time when those driveways or those sidewalks just are striped when yeah I'm thinking though that it's a curb situation and we're on the top of the curb with the sidewalk most of it is most of it isn't being served by sidewalk right other than correct but I'd like to get approval and we'll work out the details with fire and solid waste I always get solid waste or waste management in question So with the layout of these structures and stuff and the garages and stuff, will it be parking on the street at all? No, not at these widths, no. If there is, that's going to create a major problem for us. Yeah, no, there's no parking on the access easements. What we were looking at as a turnabout is after they service the dumpster back out, go straight up to the top there, and then, you know. Yeah, between 15 and 16, and then back into 18. I think that's what we're visualizing. with the length of our trucks, will they, that turn radius, will they be able to, I mean. Yeah, we'll show you a template on there. We were talking about that as well, so. I think Brian's truck is bigger than your truck. It's not compared to truck size. And just to reiterate, these are considered one- or two-family dwellings, townhouses. they're on their own lots right yes and then even with that 20 foot minimum clear width on your turnaround we were discussing the importance of making sure that these residents realize that you cannot park on this 20 foot width and that may be a challenge for number 18 especially if they're thinking that portion of the turnaround is their driveway right yeah so making sure that's abundantly clear and it's notified i mean as far as signage painting whatever needs we were considering a change of pavement material there as well between asphalt and concrete to delineate the kind of the parking area versus the non the driving area yes yeah and signage would probably be helpful tell me just be aware there are a couple of spots where I think you're showing a proposed sanitary sewer alignments right there are some spots that you are not addressing where buildings are over easements. Yeah. Just making sure those are gone through. I've been working through these with EA Partners is working with it and Mike Craft is down to the pretty tight details. Yes, thank you. For the recommendation, I guess with the access to circulation, really, I guess, to waste and fires, there's comfort with coming to a resolution. I think that would be the question as far as it's a postponement or approval. What do you feel? Do you feel comfortable that you can? The postponement was based upon the considerations of solid waste and fire. So what do you have? So the question is, are you all okay? with an approval or do you want this to stay as a postponement? I'm okay with it being an approval for what they're showing right now for the fire side. I think signing is a good idea. Yellow curves, spikes, cross the road, whatever. You all still have sign-off. I just wanted to make sure that that's addressed. Okay. Anybody else have any issues with an approval? All right. So the motion is for approval of PON MJDP 2641 Lockmere Track 4B Stone Case Valley Andover Club amended with no changes. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? All right. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Moving on down the agenda, we're now MJDP 2642 Tuscany Unit 1 Lot 160. This is at 2593 Cardushi Street. It's being Cardushi. It's being Sir Barton Way. Winchester Road is way up in this area here. They are coming in with a proposal for 14 townhomes and revising the parking on the property. There's an access point that will line up with the units across the street for their one-way in and out for their access. So with that, number one, requirements not met. Change note number 11 to read no bennettin permit shall be issued unless until a final development plan is certified by the Secretary of the Planning Commission. Denote structures built in areas of alluvial soils will have foundations and footer details prepared by a licensed professional engineer prior to issuing a building permit. Denote areas labeled as HOA to be maintained by a homeowners association. Denote development shall comply with Article 19 of the zoning ordinance. Provide a means to identify no parking at turnaround by building number 14. We're proposing a turnaround down here in this location. Complete label for gas line to include note number 13. Dimension all driveways and walkways. Denote all existing and proposed easements. Revise note number 14 regarding base flood elevations per FEMA. Correct vegetative buffer width. At this time, there's no waivers. Design considerations. See all the comments provided by the Division of Engineering. Coordinate entrances on LFUCG right away with traffic engineering and engineering. Address sanitary sewer capacity and stormwater management proposals. Planned questions and concerns. Discuss dumpster location and the 25-foot building line setback. Discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. Is the vegetative Butterford depicted correctly? The staff has recommended approval with the following sign-offs engineering traffic landscaping addressing urban forest or environmental quality like compared open space divisional water division of waste management division of water quality the US Postal Service and then correct correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met here on I'm going to open it to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions or if anybody can be removed just a quick clarification mainly from us. Add Article 19 note. I think that was mentioned already in Note 4. And then quick tweak to Note 9. The two-foot rule, I think that's established in our Article 19. Okay. So, yeah, FEMA sets the 100-year, and then each city determines the one or two-foot rule. So we've determined two foot above. Okay. Anybody else have any comments, questions? Applicant? Eric, is that phrasing correct there? the RFPE is two foot, the regulatory flood plane elevation? That's my comment. We can work on what the note says. What was on the plan wasn't accurate, and I was trying to come up with something. But what Eric said is correct. The regulatory flood protection elevation is per the regulations. And then that's base flood elevation, BFE. Yeah, so that'd be your, okay, we'll work out. I was thinking finished floor elevation. Okay. I don't really have, what was the discussion about the dumpster and the setbacks? setback what is that a issue and I can do I think that might have been my comment I couldn't tell if that was in the floodplain or if that's outside the floodplain or in the buffer or if that was going to be a problem or not I that was just kind of a question for the committee and for you also yeah that's in the setback encroaches into the setback so I didn't know if that was allowed or not I can check the ordinance again but I didn't know if we if we allow that or not the enclosure that goes around it if it's if it's a fence usually we don't allow obstructions but it's in the setback and not the flood plain so I I think that's where there's – I mean, I can do a lot in the setback. So I can do tennis court. I can do – Yeah, it was mainly a question kind of as a reminder for me to go back and double-check that as well because I didn't know our exact rules on what that stated. So, yeah, I can check on that too. So, Vaughn, you say that is in the actual setback, not the floodplain itself? Correct. That's what it looks like. Okay, okay. And it looks like we've increased our vegetative buffer from 25 to 50 feet with the new regulation. Is that what I'm seeing? Well, it's new to me. It's been about five years old. It's longer than that, actually, I think, since 2020. I looked it up. It said 25, so I put down 25. All right. But it's 50. You should read Article 19. Okay. Thank you. there's a section that says vegetative buffer okay um i should read a lot more let's see i don't have any other comments tony as i had mentioned on some previous plans this is in that north elkhorn area where the sanitary sewer capacity is very low so i don't believe that that there had been a cap application put in for this yet. So depending on how many and who gets there first. All right. And then also just I put some additional comments in Acela late yesterday, so if you don't mind just checking those. But one of them that I wanted to make sure and press upon is because you're so close to that sanitary sewer. He's been on the rear of these lots. Decks, other stuff like that. Oh, right, yeah. We're backed up to it. Yeah, even awnings for the building. Okay. So if that is a wall and there's an overhang on the roof, that's not going to be allowed in there. So be aware of how close you are to that. Okay. Should we add a note that no projections or anything can be added to the structures to the rear because of this? It'll be reviewed when building inspection brings it through. and it just I know a lot of times at this stage in the development plan times they aren't necessarily thinking of overhangs on roofs and decks and all that stuff so it's just bringing it up so that way if anything needs to be adjusted now's the time to do it because a lot of times people come in and want to add to their that's why I was just wondering if we want to say no addition can be added to the rear easement should cover it okay all right anybody else Tony okay good all right all right the stats recommendation is for approval so the motion is for approval of PLN MJDP 2642 Tuscany unit 1 lot 160 amended so moved all in favor say what opposed like motion passes okay we had one plan that the plan that they had filed an extension for their plan it's was going to expire before they were able to be able to meet all requirements this is located off of Greendale and this is Malundi way here we go so we have two buildings that are on this proposal here and as I said their plan was about to expire so they've asked for a one-year extension before they expired on their plan. They have access into the property in this location that'll bring us into the area for these two structures because these structures do not have access to the public right away. It'll be through the remaining portion of the property. So at this time they're just asking for a one-year extension on their approval. Alright, does anybody have any issues with this? Okay, so the motion is for a re-approval of PON, MJDP, 2430, Greendale Hills, Unit 3, downing extension, one-year extension. Okay, so the motion is for a one-year extension for PLN MJDP 2430 Greendale Hills Unit 3 Downing Property Parcel 2 and 3 Oakdale Development amended. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. I think that's it. I think we're adjourned. All right. Thank you. American made. Born and bred in the USA. From her silky long hair to her sexy long leg. My baby is American made. My baby is American made. Born and bred in the USA. From her silky long hair to her sexy long leg. My baby is American made. My baby is America's name Born and bred in the USA From her silky long hair to her sexy long hair My baby is America's name My baby is America's name Born and bred in the USA From her silky long hair to her sexy long hair My baby is America's name My baby is a very good day. We'll put the speakers in the window and we'll go on the roof and listen to the miracles. Echo to the alley down below. Oh, yeah. Let's dance together just for the night. Let's don't worry about the future or nothing else. Because just like the music is saying, gotta take chances. Go ahead, just do it. And trust yourself. There's a soul in the city Watching over us tonight There's a soul in the city Saying everything's gonna be alright So bring over, son, your old Monty Brothers We'll put the speakers in the window and we'll go On the roof and listen to the miracles Echo to the alley down below. Oh, yeah. They wish us luck, but they think we're just dreaming. Let's prove them wrong, baby. Because you know what luck is. Luck is believing you're lucky. That's all. I'm showing just a little bit of faith. There's a soul in the city. Watching over us, I swear. There's a soul in the city There's a whole world waiting out there Oh yeah Oh yeah Listen, I've got plans for us Playing like a skip on a record Through my head all night long But when we walk that dark and still wait And step out on the roof I know what we're feeling Check me around Ah, yeah Bring over some of your own Motown records We'll put the speakers in the window and we'll go On the roof and listen to the miracles Echoes through the alley down below Bring over some of your own long-time records Put the speakers in the window and the bones On the roof and listen to the miracles Echoes through the alley down below Thank you. So we are out at Cooliff and Park, but we're in the Smithtown neighborhood looking to hear from the neighbors of Smithtown, both those that currently live here, that used to live here in the past, but then those that are connected to Smithtown. And our main goal today is to take steps towards preserving the history and the culture of Smithtown through many different efforts. One, through policy. Two, through making sure that we can try to bring some type of capital investment that actually preserves the history and culture of Smithtown. But then three, trying to make sure that we get input towards what resources are needed so that folks can live comfortably in the homes and in the places that they live here in Smithtown. So multi-function solutions we're looking to do here at Smithtown. But at the end of the day, we're looking to preserve the history and culture of Smithtown. And the first step, what we want to do is listen to neighbors here in Smithtown and those that have been connected to Smithtown. So this all started first, you know, actually in February 2025, where I initiated the legislative item anti-displacement and vulnerable neighborhood preservation. And that item was initiated because we've seen a lot of our vulnerable neighborhoods here in the city of Lexington are facing pressures of growth. So we wanted to dive into the issue of how we can preserve the history and culture of some of our neighborhoods, but then also how we can make sure that we can address that challenge of displacement, making sure that folks have resources to live comfortably where they are. So in that process, my office worked with Council Member James Brown's office in the Office of Planning, and we dived into the challenge. And we realized that a lot of the tools in the toolbox to combat gentrification, to combat displacement, and just to combat trying to preserve, you know, different neighborhoods just don't work for some of our undervalued neighborhoods. So we wanted to come up with a solution. So we started at square one, and that's listening to the community, listening to the neighbors, listening to what do you want to preserve? What is important? What is historic about this neighborhood? all the great things and then trying to get that input and then putting that into action, whether that be through capital investments, whether that be through expanding resources, or whether that be through creating policies so that we know in the future if growth comes, when growth comes, those developers have access to community input, have access to information and context of how this neighborhood, how these neighbors want to grow in the future. So, yeah, today we're having a community event here in the Smithtown neighborhood, and it's part of the Neighborhood Voices Project that the Division of Planning, alongside the offices of Council Members Morton and Brown, are working on to basically uplift the history of neighborhoods and do a little bit of proactive community engagement in neighborhoods, especially those that are experiencing development pressure. So the Outreach and Strategic Planning section of the Division of Planning is the newest section and so we've only been around for a little over a year and this is exactly the type of work that we want to be doing is like meeting people where they're at out in the community talking to people trying to get as many people as possible engaged in the planning process because we really believe that you know the planning process works best when you know folks have a voice and you know just really trying to engage as many people as possible. So that's why we're out here in Smithtown today. I think today's event is kind of follow through on the work that we did with neighborhoods and transition, the mayor's commission on racial justice and equality, the subcommittee on housing and gentrification. When you're talking about neighborhoods that are vulnerable and are seeing a lot of change, it's good to hear from the folks that have historically lived in the neighborhood, have a tie to the neighborhood and have grown up in the neighborhood to tell us what the neighborhood used to be, the history, it shares some of that insight, but then also talk about what the neighborhood could be going forward for the future and how it can adjust and absorb some of the change that's happening. So I can see this being a model that's going to go throughout the city and being something that we can do in other neighborhoods to empower the neighborhoods to tell the city, developers, or whoever else coming into the neighborhood on what their neighborhood used to be, what it is, the history, and what it could be for the future. I'll just give a shout out to Councilmember Morton on the back for this initiative. And then also the planning department. Our planning department came to the table with him and myself and actually brainstormed and worked together to create this initiative. So I just want to give him some credit for this and give our planning department a lot of credit for this. Hey, y'all. Well, it's your vice mayor, Dan Wu, and today we're here at the Keeneland Library with Library Director Rhoda Ferraro, and we are checking out this great new exhibit called RAICES, Latino Legacies in Racing. So, Rhoda, what is this exhibit? Yes, so RAICES is an amalgam of years' worth of work to showcase the lives and contributions of more than 100 men and women from across the Americas working at every level of the sport. And RAISES means roots. It does. And we worked hard to assemble an advisory panel of folks from six different countries, and they were weighing in heavily at every part of the decision-making process, including the title of the exhibit. And there were so many potential titles on the table. But in the end, people kept coming back to Reyesus, you know, that concept of roots, not only like those individual and collective identities and legacies, but, you know, just the impacts, you know, over time and the fact that there's like this huge foundational historic context to all of this. And it's perfect that it looks like the English word for races. It does. It does. Yeah. And this is obviously not a new phenomenon. Latinos have been an integral part of racing from day one. Tell me about just the historical span of this exhibit. Yes, you are right. We don't have exact numbers, but safe estimates would put us today at about 70% of the horse industry workforce is driven by Latino talent and work. And this is across the span of all different occupations, right? It is, across the span of all different occupations. And you'll see that here in the exhibit. So our stories start in the 1800s, and they work toward the present. And the beautiful part about this exhibit, I think, is it speaks to larger industry trends and that folks who work in the horse industry, you do see this multigenerational kind of phenomenon that's taking place. And I can't speak to why that is. It's because you had that exposure early on. And, you know, we have folks on the advisory panel would say that it's a deep commitment to uphold the family's legacy when we are in this cultural context as well. So there's a host of factors as to why you see this multigenerational kind of ties. But as you work through the stories, you might be reading about somebody who's active in the industry today or was active in the industry 10 years ago. But they're third or fourth generation horsemen or horsewomen. And so some of the stories are just a progression of that family's work in the industry over time, too. So, yeah, we're starting in the 1800s and we bring it to the present. And truly, that's why the word legacy is in that title as well. Yes. Tell me about what it takes to bring a show like this here. Yes, it took quite a bit of time and effort. There was just so many moving pieces that that needed to kind of fall into place before I felt like we finally could say yes. and do this the way that it needed to be done with the insight and perspectives that it needed. And we finally got there. And that was in large part to a 250 Lex cultural grant that gave us that boost and funding to bring these international experts onto our panel and as contributors. It was also thanks to a private sponsor as well, Susan Naylor, and the Keeneland Association backed my time on it. So that external support is what drove my being able to bring in these historians and writers and translators. So it's pretty special. Lots of time, lots of work, lots of partnerships. Who would you say this exhibit is for? I think this exhibit is for everyone. And this is our first bilingual exhibit. So when you come into this space right now, what you'll see will be interpretive panels. you'll see display cases, you'll see a lot of photographs, and the text will be printed in English and you listen in Spanish. The exhibit also has an exhibit companion book that was released with text in English and you can listen in Spanish. We're working right now on translating that companion book into Spanish, so you'll be reading it in Spanish with that capacity to listen in Spanish for that heightened access. But in terms of age groups, it's also for everyone. Well, not only do we have stories and words and photographs, we also have some trophies and artifacts. Yes. So let's go take a look. Yes. All right. So we have a trophy case here, some great trophies, and you've got a great story about Ramon Dominguez, right? Yes. So Ramon Dominguez is a perfect example of those multi-general ties that we spoke about earlier. From Venezuela, was born into a family kind of steeped in the horse industry at various levels. So Ramon wins back-to-back Eclipse Awards for the Outstanding Jockey in the 2010, 11, and 12. This photo of him behind us is a photo taken at Keeneland. But what I want to share about Ramon is, one, Ramon was on the advisory panel for this exhibit. In addition to being a superstar athlete, Ramon is an incredibly generous person. and Ramon had a spill at the height of his career that was career-ending. And he came back and is this incredible voice, an advocate for jockey safety. You'll sometimes see him on air as an analyst and broadcast in both English and Spanish. He spends a lot of time advocating for for jockeys. And he also is an inventor. So I think the most incredible story about Ramon is is that just that that perseverance and that that that the steady presence of sharing generosity. And that's at every level. And, yeah, last year he he won one of the last man standing ultra marathon. Wow. Yeah. So I think that speaks to that grit and that perseverance, too. So this isn't just history. This is living history. It is. Absolutely. Yeah. So how can folks see this exhibit? So you can come to the library Monday through Friday, 830 to 430. It's freely available to folks, and you can just take it in on your own. And then how can folks engage more with the Keeneland Library generally? Yes. So I would encourage folks to start with our website, which is kingland.com slash library. But know that what you're seeing on our website is really just a fraction of what we do. So if folks are looking to research anything that touches on the horse industry, I mean, it can be several degrees of separation removed from it. We get 10,000 of those requests a year. So don't ever feel like, is this a question that they could potentially help me with? Maybe we can, maybe we can't, but we will always look. So regardless of what it is that you need for information or even for image assets, reach out to us. We are the world's largest repository of information and images that cover this industry, not just here in the bluegrass, but internationally as well. How long will this exhibit be up? We are going to have this exhibit up through early November. So we're going to have a big international audience visiting us here in Lexington for Breeders' Cup. in late October. So we'll have this great fortune of kind of timing this to coincide with that. So we're already planning Breeders' Cup specific tours. I'm really looking forward to that. All right, let's go learn about some of these people. Yes. All right, Rhoda, this looks like a shot from a movie. Tell me about this photo. I do love it. And I think the same thing. Like this, this couldn't have been a candid moment. This feels like a movie poster. So back to one of those core themes of overtime. This shot was taken in July of 1969. What we see here, and I love the activity of the shot, you still see those rotors, the movement of the rotors, you know, on that helicopter. These jockeys would have just left racing in New York. They were landing at a track in New Jersey to ride in the afternoon, same day. We have Eddie Belmonte, we have Braulio Baeza, we have Jacinto Vasquez and we have Angel Cordero Jr. greats. And, you know, the fact that they're they're all together just like this as if this was the most, you know, normal routine thing to be doing for four people to pack into a helicopter and arrive from New York to New Jersey. But it was absolutely the norm for their life. But I do think it speaks to that degree of dominance and how far back in history, you know, we see examples of that. So, Rhoda, tell me about Mirna. Yes. So, Mirna is a groom. She works for the Brazilian trainer, Paulo Lobo. Mirna is from Guatemala. Much of her family is still in Guatemala. Her daughter is here. And what I love about Mirna is, one, I mean, her personality, her attitude, her approach is always just so positive and upbeat. her degree of commitment to the care 24 7 care and management of horses is just amazing and it's just great to be down in that barn because you're hearing all these languages spoken you know every day so you'll have Spanish you'll have some Portuguese in the mix you have some English so it's just a Palo Lobo stable is tremendous and his crew including Mirna are equally so so We're fortunate to have thousands of people who are committing their lives to the welfare and the care of these horses every day. Muna is one of them. So not only do we have a lot of historical information, historical photographs, we also have modern day photographs taken by local photographers. Yes. So do check these out. This is another example of partnering with community organizations. So the kiosk that you see here with these amazing shots that were taken on Caneland's backside when I spent some mornings with these artists and walk them around the grounds and they were able to capture these amazing moments that really on any given morning you would arrive and you would find equally amazing moments. But to see as an artist, you know, the way that it played out and what they captured in the photo is amazing. So yes, we're very pleased to partner with this local artist project and showcase some of their work here as part of our exhibit as well. Well, Rhoda, thank you so much for showing me around today. RAISES, The Making of Latino Legacies in Racing will be up at the Keeneland Library through November. Do you understand? Do you feel the same? Am I only dreaming? Or is this burning an eternal flame? Close your eyes, give me your hand, darling Do you feel my heart beating? Do you understand? Do you feel the same? Am I only dreaming? Is this burning an eternal life? Close your eyes. Give me your hand. Do you feel my heartbeat?