# Planning Commission Subdivision (Sub) Committee - June 4, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · June 4, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6789 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6789?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-06-04 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 4, 2026 - **Length**: 6,008 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Subdivision Committee met on June 4, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. at the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room. The meeting covered four agenda items spanning a range of subdivision matters. During the meeting, the committee took 3 votes, heard 1 informational presentation, and received no public comments. Of the four agenda items considered, two were approved — **PATCHEN WILKES, UNIT 2, LOT 10 (AMD)** and **ROSEMILL SUBDIVISION, UNIT 2** — while **GREENDALE HILLS, UNIT 3** was postponed. The **GEORGE WEST ESTATE PROPERTY** item was presented as informational and was not subject to a vote. ## Attendance The following 20 members were present at the June 4, 2026 Commission meeting: - Vaughan Adkins - David Filiatreau - Eric Sutherland - Brooke Gray - Lane Gilliam - Brian Morgan - Rob Volpenhein - Scott Burton - Boyd Sewe - Scott Thompson - Chris Dent - Erik Merlino - Tyler Skaggs - Traci Wade - Daniel Crum - Chris Chaney - Cheryl Gallt - Paula Owens - Tracy Jones - Brittany Smith No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on three items during the June 4, 2026 meeting, with all motions carried unanimously. - **PLN-MJDP-26-00040 – Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2, Lot 10 (AMD):** Madam Chair moved approval of this amended major development plan. The motion passed unanimously with 13 conditions attached. [timestamp: 0:17:16] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00030 – Greendale Hills, Unit 3:** Madam Chair moved to postpone this item. The motion to postpone passed unanimously, with the matter held for further discussion and a visit from the applicant before returning to the Commission. [timestamp: 0:41:22] - **PLN-MJDP-26-00033 – Rosemill Subdivision, Unit 2:** Madam Chair moved approval of this major development plan. The motion passed unanimously with 13 conditions attached. [timestamp: 0:48:51] No roll call votes were recorded; all three actions were decided by unanimous consent. No seconds, individual vote tallies, or dissenting votes are reflected in the meeting record. ## Contested Items - **Pedestrian Access from Patchen Wilkes Development to Kroger:** A heated discussion arose regarding the absence of a safe pedestrian crossing connecting the Patchen Wilkes development to the nearby Kroger site. Participants raised concerns about the risks posed to pedestrians attempting to access the grocery store from the development without a designated, safe crossing point. Potential solutions discussed included the installation of bumpouts or refuge islands to improve pedestrian safety at the crossing. The structured data does not indicate a final resolution or identify the specific commissioners or parties involved in the exchange, nor does it record a definitive outcome from the discussion. ## PATCHEN WILKES, UNIT 2, LOT 10 (AMD) **Case No. PLN-MJDP-26-00040** [timestamp: 02:10] The Commission took up a discussion item regarding an amended development plan for Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2, Lot 10 — a proposed group residential development consisting of 8 multi-family buildings and 288 units. Key speakers on this item included Chris and Tom Hatfieldwell, who participated in presenting and discussing the proposal before the Commission. - **Pedestrian access** was identified as a notable issue during the discussion, with commissioners and/or speakers examining how residents and the public would safely navigate the site and connect to surrounding areas. - **Stormwater management** was also raised as a concern, reflecting the scale of the development and the need to adequately address drainage and runoff associated with the multi-family project. Following discussion of these issues, the Commission approved the amended development plan. ## GEORGE WEST ESTATE PROPERTY **Agenda Item:** PLN-WAV-26-00015 [timestamp: 18:18] The Commission took up a discussion item regarding the George West Estate Property, located at **4538 Georgetown Road**. The item centered on requested waivers related to two development standards: **tree canopy standards** and **open space standards**. **Madison** was identified as a key speaker in the presentation of this item. The discussion was informational in nature, meaning no formal vote or binding decision was taken at this meeting. - The agenda item was classified as a **waiver discussion** (PLN-WAV-26-00015), indicating the property owner or applicant is seeking relief from the jurisdiction's standard requirements for tree canopy coverage and open space. - The Commission received information regarding the nature of the requested waivers and their applicability to the Georgetown Road property. - The outcome of the discussion was **informational**, with no final determination recorded at this session. No additional details regarding specific concerns raised, the extent of the requested waivers, or any Commission direction were captured in the available record for this item. ## GREENDALE HILLS, UNIT 3 **Agenda Item:** PLN-MJDP-24-00030 [timestamp: 34:10] The Commission took up agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00030, GREENDALE HILLS, UNIT 3, a discussion item concerning the reapproval and extension of a plan for commercial buildings and associated parking. - The item was presented as a discussion, with Cheryl identified as the key speaker during this portion of the meeting. The outcome of this agenda item was a **postponement** — the Commission did not reach a final decision and the matter was deferred for future consideration. *Note: The available structured data for this item is limited. Specific details regarding the substance of the presentation, any concerns raised by commissioners, or the stated reasons for postponement are not reflected in the provided source materials.* ## ROSEMILL SUBDIVISION, UNIT 2 **Agenda Item:** PLN-MJDP-26-00033 | [timestamp: 43:33] The Commission took up a discussion item concerning a zone change and development plan for property located at 500 Southland Drive, Lexington, KY. - Tony Barrette was the key speaker presenting on this agenda item. - The item involved both a zone change request and an associated development plan for the Rosemill Subdivision, Unit 2. The Commission ultimately **approved** the item. *Note: Additional details regarding specific arguments made, concerns raised, or conditions attached to the approval are not available in the source materials for this item.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-26-00040: PATCHEN WILKES, UNIT 2, LOT 10 (AMD) - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of PLN-MJDP-24-00030: GREENDALE HILLS, UNIT 3 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-26-00033: ROSEMILL SUBDIVISION, UNIT 2 --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll call this meeting temp order. The planning division subdivision committee meeting. We'll start with the first item. It's not on. There we go. All right. Good morning. My first plan, preliminary development plan, MJDP 2640, Patch and Wilkes Unit 2, Lot 10. This is located at 1811 Winchester Road. This is a plan for group residential development with eight multifamily buildings and 288 units. This is located, so we have Winchester Road here to the bottom plan left. This is depicting the future Charleston Drive where it comes in to the roundabout with future Thunderstick and future Patch and Wilkes. They'll all connect here. we've recently looked at development plans this is the kroger site i believe it's lot eight to the bottom of the plan and then recent more recently we looked at a plan for single family homes in this area here along patch and wilkes drive so this is kind of the last little piece along this section and the patch and wilkes townhomes in the lake are in this area The main Patchenwilk's drive connection to Winchester Road is over here. So this is kind of the last little piece here. There's a little floodplain. It's an unnamed tributary of North Elkhorn Creek, I believe, along the rear of the property. what they're depicting there are eight multi-family buildings kind of around the perimeter of the the site with parking internal they're showing a connection access here and an access here near the roundabout then they're also showing a clubhouse here with the leasing office a gym and a pool so this is kind of their their common amenity area there's also a dog park down here closest to the roundabout so they did provide a revised plan on June 1st so you should have a revised staff report on that number one under requirements not met we have upload open space exhibit to a cell and include open space requirements in the site statistics as percentage number two depict the bicycle parking per article 16-12 number three depict all existing easements and number four commercial driveway entrances shall comply with standard drawing 307-2 there are no waivers requested at this time under design considerations see all a cell comments provided by the division of engineering address sanitary sewer capacity and what is the stormwater management proposal and under plan questions and concerns number one discuss aligning access points with the access points on lot 8 and the access road and we discussed during the development plan for the Kroger I believe I think David was here I was gonna ask him if you remember it exactly but I think the conversation was that this would be approved as an at grade entrance with the understanding that it would connect to the multifamily development across the road. They're not showing that connect. We had a discussion at the tech committee about that, about how they're depicting this is going to force pedestrians to cross here and come back up to get to the Kroger or cross here and go out to Winchester Road and come back. And there's some topography concerns. So we know that, you know, people from the multifamily development are going to want to walk to Kroger, and they're not showing a good pedestrian connection for that. So that was a discussion item that we had, and we talked a bit about it, tech committee. Number two, discuss how pedestrians will access the proposed Kroger on lot eight, kind of the same issue. Number three, discuss the status of the loamer. They did go to the Floodplain Appeals Committee for the development of the road and some of the floodplain issues down there. So there's a LOMER in process. So we just wanted to discuss that. Or CLOMER, am I right about that? A LOMER. Number four, discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas. And then we've got standard sign-offs. I believe there's 12 of them. And then finally, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met. And with that, I'll open it up to you all if you have questions for me. Any questions for staff? Thank you. I don't think you're on. Uh-oh. Everybody's sorry. Yeah, sorry. It seemed like I remember you showed us where Kroger's is. What I'm going to say is behind Kroger's wasn't there a fairly large apartment complex, residential complex as well? Yeah, so I don't know exactly where the lot delineation would be, but there was a lot line between the Kroger here and then another proposed multifamily on that block. Just trying to verify. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. We have the applicant. I think so. My name is Tom Hadfield. I'm with EA Partners. And Chris is right. We have taken care of all of the requirements not met. The open space exhibit has been uploaded to a cell, I believe. If not, it's been submitted for review. The developers met with Scott and has worked out the bicycle storage. They're going to be inside the breezeways as required, so we have no issue with that. I'm not sure exactly which easements we're missing. I don't know, Vaughn, if you've got specific ones. or to our knowledge, we've got them all shown that are existing. There may be some that are associated with Charleston that have not been shown possibly. Charleston Drive is under construction, so none of those easements exist. None of the proposed easements have been created at this point. And the entrances are shown as up-and-over entrances to the apartment, so those will obviously meet the requirements. we'll work with Vaughn on all of her comments sanitary sewer capacity once this plan gets approved we will upload a capacity assurance application and get that process going Division of Water Quality also has a major sewer project for area 2 of the urban expansion area that will eliminate the North Elkhorn pump station that's behind Cracker Barrel back in there, and it is located across the interstate on I-64, and that project is in the process of getting right of way and designing those plans. So that sewer project will be up and running in three or four years, and will take care of any capacity issues for this area. Stormwater management, it's either going to be provided in the open space down at the top of the sheet within the greenway. If there's not sufficient area there to provide that, it'll be provided within the parking lots and infiltration-based treatment. The access points and lining them up, as you can see, we've got, there's a retaining wall. This side is pretty difficult. There's a retaining wall right there. approximately in that area up toward the site, the portion closest to Winchester Road, there's about 40 feet of difference between Charleston Drive and the creek down below. As you work down towards the roundabout, that gets better. So that's the purpose of the retaining wall up near Charleston Drive. There's also a retaining wall along the open space to the top of the page to help make up that great difference. So that's one reason why Pippin Path, which is the first entrance to Kroger and the Outlots off of Winchester Road, that's why they don't line up there. Obviously, the developer would like to have an entrance as you come off Charleston that leads you right to the leasing and the clubhouse and everything right there. That's why that second entrance is located, or the first entrance to the apartments is located there. and then we just moved the other one down, again, grading purposes, access elevations-wise. So we think our plan provides sufficient access spacing along Charleston. In our office, I don't know if it meets all the studies, but in our office there's some level of thought that a three-legged intersection is safer than a four-legged intersection where you've got to worry about traffic coming across the road, coming from each direction. So in our opinion, what we have shown is sufficient. We're willing to work with traffic engineering if we need to move. You can see the parking lot that's right across from the Kroger entrance that's in question. that could easily be connected to Charleston and move the first entrance down to that location and align it with Kroger if that's something that's desirable. As far as pedestrian access to the Kroger, like Chris said, you can go down to the roundabouts. You've got a crossing there with refuge. You can also go up to Winchester Road. There will be a signal there with a crosswalk. I hate to introduce crosswalks, dedicated crosswalks at a location where there's no stop sign available. You're telling people that they've got a crosswalk, they feel like they're safe, and they cross, and there's no method for stopping the traffic. But the problem is they're not going to go down. They're going to take the shortest route where there is no crosswalk. And you said you did talk to Scott. I mean, are you all planning on doing, like, bump outs or refuge or something? We'll work with traffic and figure out some way. If we need to do something, we'll provide a, you know, there's been discussions of, you know, beacons or something like that, a refuge in the middle. It is a collective street. You know, our office is in Beaumont. You've got Beaumont Kroger. You've got lots of commercial around it. You've got 500 acres in Beaumont, similar to what's around this, if you include Eastland subdivision. I don't see this operating any different than the Beaumont-Kroger. But if I've got my groceries at Kroger, I'm not going to walk down the hill to the intersection, cross over and walk back up the hill to my apartment. I'm going to go straight across where there is no pedestrian accommodation, on a street where cars are going to, it's posted 35, they're probably going to be going faster. So it's like Scott said before and like we discussed before, it's an unsafe condition as it is. We'll work with traffic engineering and get something worked out if we need to. The Clomer, it's in the works. We're still working on it. It has not been submitted to FEMA yet, haven't been submitted to you all to review. It doesn't really affect anything on here. We do have a creek crossing of the U.S. 60 tributary where Patch and Wilkes Drive goes underneath, and we can't finish that. We won't be able to put any of that infrastructure in until we get that clomer approved. And then the stormwater management that's on site will obviously be owned and maintained by the developer, the owner of the apartments. and I think that's all of the questions. If anybody's got any more, I would be glad to try to address them. Go ahead. I'm just wondering if this is scheduled for June the 11th. Crossing what Chris brought up, are we going to have to make that decision or are you all going to have it made before the 11th? I would think we'd have it made before the 11th. I hope so because that's a real sticky point at our meetings. Yeah, we'll get it taken care of. Thank you. Steve, how sticky of a point is that? I think we can work with them. And I don't know by the 11th whether we're at an impasse or whether they're proposing something that can satisfy. and be safe. I don't think we necessarily need a stop condition in the middle of Charleston, but there are methods to safely provide for pedestrians to get across there. Okay. I tend to agree with Chris in the fact that they're going to take the shortcut. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? All right. Well, thank you. Okay. Do we have any public comment? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Yep. Great for a motion. Madam Chair, I move that for recommendation of approval for PLNMJDP 2640, With the 12 conditions, I assume we don't do 13 for requirements not met. Is that right? No. Yeah. 13 conditions. Yeah, 13 conditions. Second. All right. Motion made and second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. We're unanimous. Thank you. Good morning. We're going to move on down the page. We are going to take and look at our first waiver for the day. This is PLN WAV 2615 George West Estate Property. We have a development plan associated with this. This property is located out off of Georgetown Road, address 4538 Georgetown Road. they they're coming in for a waiver it's an existing convenience store the waiver they're requesting is for the tree canopy standards open space and yeah and tree canopy open space and then association with the development plan like I said this is an existing place they're adding 150 square feet, 156 square feet to the rear of the building. And so with this all existing, they're having to ask for waivers to meet the ordinance for tree canopy and open space on the property. There's, they don't have a lot of, they have a lot of parking on here. So I guess the option is possibly to remove some of this parking. I know that they've talked with Eve Miller with Open Space and Eric Sutherland with the tree canopy. So I'm going to be working with them also to work out a waiver report for you all for the full planning commission meeting. So I will open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Okay, so they're adding? They're adding additional building square footage. That's why they're having to do an amended on the development plan, the final development plan. And so to be able to do that, then they have to meet the minimum requirements per the zoning ordinance. And to meet those minimum requirements, the tree canopy required by the ordinance and the open space required by the ordinance under Article 20 and Article 26, they can't meet those at this time with what they have on the property. So they're having to ask for a waiver of those. Do they use all of the parking now? Well, I let the applicant explain that to you. Okay, all right. Because that was kind of suggested, you know, could they remove some of the parking at the tech meeting? So I'm not sure. We'll ask at that time again. Okay. Any other questions? No other questions? All right. We'll hear from the applicant. Good morning. My name is Madison. I am here from the Dimension Group. Just to answer the question about the parking, I would say the plan right in front of the store is typically used. The rear parking is typically used for employee parking only. um it's not always full or used just a couple of spaces so it is an option to remove some parking um i guess the big issue is if the ordinances are referencing the b3 zone versus the agricultural zone of the site those parking spaces fall in that agricultural zone so i don't know that adding the tree canopy there would satisfy the B3 zoning ordinances requirements there. So I guess that's kind of our issue with doing that, unless the site can be considered as one kind of combined zone and have its specific kind of thing. But that is the reason for the waiver, I guess. I don't know if there's any further questions or anything, but I'm happy to answer anything. Is this, I'm having trouble with the location. Is this where the George West liquor store used to be? Correct, yes. Okay, so this is, is this where they've tried to incorporate one of those, what do you call, food trucks? Not to my knowledge, no. So Casey's purchased the property fairly recently, and so it's kind of undergone Casey's rebranding. I think the liquor store is still there. Then the other side is obviously just a Casey's branded convenience store, but no food truck to my knowledge. Well, the George West liquor store is on down the street from there. Okay. Okay. So I know where you're talking about now. But Casey's is going to be the proprietor. Correct, yes. It needs to. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. Sorry. Help me a little bit. The 150 square feet addition, is that on the back of the building? Correct, yes. And is this all, the parking and everything is all built out now? Yes, everything is existing currently on the site except that small addition on the rear. So the parking is there, the fuel canopy is there, the fuel tanks, which is that big rectangle kind of next to the canopy over there. You mentioned adding tree canopy. Yes, that was one of our requirements was to do that. That's why the reason for the waiver was because we can't really add it to that B3 zone because it's all concrete. the fuel canopy parking, which is not really. Okay. The property is split zoned. Is this kind of, since this is, you know, that area, that is built out already, is it because what the new building to the left that's been built is, no? We're just looking at this one piece of property. The property is split zoned, and they went to the Board of Adjustments and ask for, there's a conditional use where they can extend a business use into the AR zone of 50 feet. And so what they have done is they've created a 50-foot buffer around the B3 zone to be able to extend it, and all that is in the agricultural AR zone. So their parking is all in the AR zone. and so it does not allow the B3 does not give them anywhere to extend into the AR zone. Why are they extending it now since it's already built out? Well, I imagine they just need to do an addition maybe for a beer cooler. Yeah, it's just like an additional space for I think they have planning for storage coolers and then I think maybe a small office kind of just there. Okay. I'm just – the waiver for the tree canopy is for – I don't have a problem with the expansion, 150 square feet. I'm just trying to figure out why the tree canopy waiver needs to come into play now if the expansions on the building right next to the building, I wouldn't think the tree canopy would be necessary next to the building. Yeah, that was just a request at the technical review meeting that we do it. Yeah, he just requested that because we couldn't provide more. Okay. All good. So where the B3 touches the AR is like before the building? You know, you can't get 50 feet to the left or right? Yes, that was existing prior, yes, that line. So that's B3. So if you said, I thought you said something about 50 feet into the AR could qualify for the B3. Okay. Okay. So, okay, I guess I misunderstood then. I thought that you were saying that 50 feet beyond the B3 into the AR could be used for the tree canopy. Is that what you were saying? Correct. But what it is is they have parking. In that whole area. They have their tanks and they have their gas tanks. And then all their parking is located in that 50-foot extension into the AR. I guess that brings me back to my first question. Is all of that parking needed? I mean, we can probably look at removing maybe half of those ones at the north up there. I just we also have a fuel tank truck route we need to maintain as well it's already fairly tight so ideally they would be able to wrap around still and I believe even if we were to remove half those spaces I do not think we're still going to meet the requirements so like we're happy to get it as far as we can. I just don't think they're still going to meet those requirements. Is the liquor store going to stay? Yeah, the one attached over to the right. It's currently there and I think the plan is to keep it there as well. It'll just be branded different. Thank you. I hope they can improve it. Take note of that. As if you're a regular customer there? I'm sorry. I know better. Here nor there. The current situation, the liquor store is not an asset to the rest of the property. It's a strict liability to the rest of the property. Casey's will probably clean that at home, sir. And no, Mike, I'm not a free worker. would there be an opportunity to extend it in the b3 zone you've got a small island is kind of reverse j hook to the left of the canopy and you've got a vast amount of pavement from that end all the way over to the far end which is way above our entrance widths right um is there an opportunity to remove some of that pavement create a landscaping island and more define the access from the access road onto the property to you know increase your your safety um i understand you're trying to get a fuel truck in there and we could certainly work with you on that but that's over 100 feet of pavement width our commercial entrances are typically 30 and so I'm wondering if there's an opportunity to define a space for entrance from the access road onto the property at the same time create landscaping along the access road and the property boundary that would, and then in combination with possibly eliminating some parking stalls, achieve, maybe it doesn't meet your 100%, but if it's 75%, and at the same time you're increasing the safety of access onto and off of the property. because right now you've got kind of a straight shot from the pumps out to an axis road, which creates a whole lot of conflict points. And if you could better define that with landscaping and a small island that achieves some of the waiver you're asking for, if you could look into that, I think it would be helpful. For sure, yeah. Happy to look into that as well as an auction, as well as the parking removal. Okay, that sounds good. Any other questions for the applicant? All right, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public comments? All right, bring it back to committee. Madam Chair, I've got a question. Yes. You are legal. With this being a waiver request and Cheryl saying that she's got a report to put together to bring to us and so forth, what action do we need on this today? Yeah, I mean, is it something for us to act on today? I think that you all have not been acting on the waiver presentation because we don't have a formal report. Correct. And we don't have a formal recommendation at this point for you. Okay. So it's more information. Informational. Okay. Okay, very good. Great. All right. Well, we'll move along to the next item. This one will be short and sweet. The waiver for the Coldstream Research Campus, the applicants have indicated that they want to move forward without doing variances or waivers, so they've been working with traffic and KYTC to amend their plan so they don't need it. So as far as I'm aware, at this time, there won't be a waiver for this. So we'll, you know. Will this be next week's planning commission then? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Great. Like those. What's next? Did we lose Cheryl? Oh, there she is. Cheryl, is the Greendale Hills, are we? Looking at that. Okay. Okay. So, no, they're not doing a waiver. This is a re-approval, and I'm not as familiar with this one. I think Cheryl looked at it. I don't know. We'll let her. I don't have any of the details. Okay. This property, it was approved and I don't have my wristband. Sorry. It was approved in June 13, 2024. And so the plan will expire as of June. And anyway, so they're asking for an extension in May of last year, and then they're asking for another extension for this year because they have not been able to get all the sign-offs. They've been working through the process to get their sign-offs. This is on Melundi. I'm sorry. This is Melundi. We have Greendale out here. We had an apartment complex. apartment buildings that they put in here and those have been built and so now they're coming in for the commercial area which they have the driveway access in here to driveway access come back here there you go lines up and it comes in to allow for the commercial buildings and so they're having to ask for an extension on the plan so that they can finish and get the remaining sign off so that they can bring it back in for us to approve for them to go and move forwards for building permits on this these were two commercial areas that they had proposed two buildings on the property As I said, this is Greendale here, Malundi here. And so they had the sign-offs. They have most of them. They just had a couple of them that they had not been able to work out with different governmental agencies. So they're currently working through those processes so that they can move forward. Let me ask a question. Go ahead. Is this a timing issue? Are we up against the 8-2-26, is that why they want the extension? Yeah, they're trying to get the plan in so they can get another year for them to get that extension for them to get sign-offs. So when did this thing originally start? It looks in June 24th. It's MJDP 2430, so it started in June of 24. Has anything changed in the ordinances then that you know of? So are we going to do an extension that's going to put us? I don't know that there's. I'll have to take a look at that. I don't know. Is the applicant here? No. Well, usually when these things go out that long, there's a problem. Yeah. And I was trying to find the problem before we made the... Just looking at it, the only thing I can see right now, they have 12 parking spaces here. they might have to add an additional island landscape island in this area and maybe some crossings to have connection out to Greendale well no they have that connection right there out to Greendale so we're recommending approval of this and I'm not trying to find reason not to approve it it's just by the time something drags out that long, you just wonder. Right. And we can approve it and go forward and ask that question when the time comes at the meeting. I will take a look at it and get back with you guys. Okay. Okay? I got some. So if I was looking at this under today, how I look at all the other plans, The issue I would have is that drive-out access that's around the building that they're showing is showing 15 feet. And if I was applying that, if this came in today, I would be looking at 16 feet for us to get our trucks around that. Okay. It looks like they proposed a drive-through here. It's going to bring you back down here to this driveway to come back out. Yes, on that back side that loops around the right side of that structure. Yeah, all that one way right there they were indicating as 15 feet. Okay. And that's one of the issues with traffic engineering is it certainly looks like a drive-thru. There's no vehicle stack shown. So if it's intended to be a drive-thru, then you would have to provide the six-car stack shown, which would block that access around the back of the building. if it's not intended to be a drive-thru, then we would want a note that says no drive-thru for this building because it makes a difference on the circulation pattern for fire and the stacking of the vehicles. So those are some impasses that have not been able to work out. That's the sign-offs. Okay. We'll take a step back and take a look at the plan and get more information. Thank you. That will help. Okay. So do we act on this or post phone? I mean, what? I would say post phone. Yeah, it sounds like we need more information. Yeah, with possible changes. I will contact and talk with the different agencies, and we'll talk with the applicant and see what we can do. the tech committee recommended approval at least according to the staff report I don't remember off the top of my head from the meeting if what's that if you want to recommend a referral and then that way we will bring you back more information. Yeah, okay. That way, then we have to present it to you. What's the difference between referral and postponement? Well, you're just referring it to the full planning commission. That's the way my understanding. A postponement, you could postpone it too, if you like. I mean, because it wouldn't make sense to bring it to the full planning commission like it is. No, but if I contact them and tell them that we need to work this stuff out, I guess you could recommend a postponement, and then that way, if they can't work it out, then we'll wait another month and we'll bring it back to you in a month. If you want to do that, that'd be fine. Madam Chair, I'll move for a recommendation postponement on this extension of Plan MJDP 24-30 Greendale Hills for further discussion and a visit from the applicant. Second. All right. The motion was made in second for postponement. All in favor? Aye. Okay. We're unanimous. Thank you. Okay. That's right. Moving down the agenda. Looks like he left. Mr. Sheehan. On MJDP 2630 WML Properties LLC 2 Keys. I don't know if we have that in here. Yep. There we go. So this is the plan, and it's my understanding that they were wanting to postpone that. I'll let Tony speak on that. Good morning. Tony Barrett here on behalf of Two Keys. Yeah, the owners or the tenants, Two Keys, are still trying to work out some matters with the owners, with the landlord. and they're making progress but not there yet. So I ask for a postponement for one month. All right. One month postponement. So are we going to recommend that or are you going to do it at the meeting? We'll do. Yeah, we'll make that recommendation. We'll request that at the meeting. Okay. I just wanted to let you know. Okay, that's great. All right, thank you. The next one is a postponement for MJDP 2633. This is Roams Mill Subdivision Unit 2, Paiva Property. I'm sorry? Paiva? Paiva. I'm sorry. Paiva Property. This is a zone change for this property located here on the corner of Mitchell and Southland Drive. We have Rosemont at this location here. This was an existing bank at one time, and they're rezoning the property from a P1 to a B1 for neighborhood business use. We received a revised development plan, so you should have revised conditions. This will go in front of the zoning meeting. As you can see, under requirements not met, denote approval of all waivers and variances, depict all existing and proposed easements, depict an accessible route to the vegetated usable open space area in the backside of the coffee shop in the open space exhibit. They are showing a route here, but I wanted to verify with pedestrian, bike, and ped and also with our open space folks to make sure that that is going to meet their requirements. Waivers and variances. A variance to reduce the vehicular use area at the perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 0 feet. A variance to reduce the interior landscaping for vehicle use area from 10% to 3.2%. and a variance to reduce the interior vehicle use area tree canopy from 30% to 7%. Design considerations address sanitary sewer capacity. Plan questions is the place builder criteria. Staff recommends approval with the following sign-offs because this is a final development plan because it's an existing structure, so they're just going to need to make a few modifications to the exterior. parking area for the landscaping and tree canopy, provided the Urban County Council approves from a B1 to a B1 zone. It gets approved. Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineering, Landscaping, Addressing, Urban Forester, Bike and Pedestrian, Open Space, Division of Waste Management, Documentation of Division of Water Quality, United States Postal Service, and then correct all note deficiencies as listed requirements not met hereon. So with that, I will open it to you to see if there's any other comments or questions. Do we have any questions for staff? Okay. And place builder. I just wanted to give you all a quick update. Where this was at, at the zoning level, staff had been recommending approval of the zone change. We had been requesting a postponement of the variance basically to get the additional protective piece down here at the corner so that there was some delineation and separation between the traffic moving at this site and the folks at the corner. So based on the revised design in front of you, staff is recommending approval of the modified requested variances. And they actually have withdrawn a couple. So, one, they wanted to reduce the building setback, its existing structure. It isn't necessary for them to operate. As well as they were asking for a waiver for allowing the VUA in the front yard. That's also an existing element and wasn't needed. So they've cleaned up what they needed to. Staff is recommending approval of this for the zone change and the design you're seeing here for the variances. But happy to answer any questions about those. Any other questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do we have the applicant here? Okay. Good morning. Tony Barrett here on behalf of Fox South LLC. Yeah, we ostensibly thought we would have been approved last week, But we postponed, and back today, as was pointed out, the corner landscape area was provided, and the intent is to keep the building intact as is, to maintain the character, the vibe that is there, and consistent with Southland Drive. So I don't really have anything further to add, so I just ask for your approval. Any questions? All right. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Bring it back to committee. I don't like your hand. Oh. I'm sure I move it from through. Turn your mic. I'm not coming back on that one. Thank you. I move for approval of PLMJDP 2633. Do you want to include the variances? That is not a bill. Okay, thank you. The reason provided by staff. Second. And the 12th condition. Second. 13 conditions. Motion's been made and second. All in favor? All right. Unanimous. Have anything else? Oh, that's it? I think that's all we've got. Okay. That was a good, quick meeting. Well, meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. What a place you got here, well... Thank you.