And we'll go on and get started with staff. Morning, everybody. All right. OK. The first plan on our agenda this morning, MJDP 2652 White Farm. This is located at 3515 Richmond Road. The purpose of this plan is to depict a 114 townhome and 480 unit multifamily group residential development, as well as the associated public infrastructure. And there is a waiver associated with this one as well. We looked at this before the preliminary development plan. This is a final development plan, preliminary subdivision plan, which is why it's coming back before the planning commission. And then there is also the waiver. Normally, if this was a final subdivision plan, it would be approved by tech and not come on to the planning commission. So just kind of reorient everybody. This is Yorkshire, where it meets Palumbo in this curve. And so Richmond Road is off to plan left a little ways. This is the back end of the farm. And then this is Dabney, where it currently comes up in the ends before the property line. So they're proposing the extension of Dabney through that will then stub into the remainder of the farm, and then Palumbo will extend down and intersect with Dabney there. So then the townhome area of this plan is to plan north. These are all townhomes. There is a public street proposed to come in cul-de-sac with access easements to access the townhomes. And then the remainder of the property is multifamily, and there are a couple of detention basins down here. One of the things that came up during the discussions is the question about the drainage from this detention base and off-site. There's a private parcel, single-family parcel here, and then the golf course. So we just had some questions about that. And then the waiver is to utilize a private pump station for this development. And Jeremy can talk a little bit about that. There's some cleanup items under requirements not met. Most everything is cleanup. Under the discussion, again, it was mainly there's a question about dumpster locations, and I'm sure they'll work that out with sign-offs, and then stormwater management and the potential that if they need additional easements off-site for the stormwater management, there's some questions about that. And then the maintenance and access responsibilities for the stormwater management areas and how that affects the off-site properties. And then we just have the standard sign-offs, including the deficiencies listed as requirements not met. And with that, I'll open it up to the committee if you all have any. Do we have any questions for staff? I do. Okay, go ahead. A private pump station, who owns it? I believe it would be the developer. The applicant can probably speak more specifically to that. Okay, I'll hold it for that. Thank you. All right, any other questions for staff? All right, thank you. We'll have the applicant. I'm sorry. So, Jeremy Young, planning staff. As Chris said, we do have a waiver. It is a subdivision regulation 6-6B, which does require the pump station be dedicated as a public utility. We do have a justification statement here that states what they want to do, but the land subdivision regulation states several different criteria that can justify a waiver. We don't really have a whole lot of detail as to why they want to make a private pump versus a public. So, if we get a little bit more information about that, that might help make a decision on the waiver. And if you all have any questions, I can answer those about the waiver. Okay. Doesn't sound like we have enough information to answer. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, now we'll have the applicant. Good morning. Brad Boaz with CMW. And we can start with the waiver. The developer is more than happy to make this a public pump station. It was just a question of does water quality have to accept it, and if they don't, it has to be private. Would you all accept it being a private pump station? So, we're super flexible either way, whatever makes the most sense. And so, if we just say it's going to be public and everyone here agrees, then we're good to go. There was a question of it wasn't labeled as private versus public on the development plan, so I think that might have been what the question was. Yeah, and I'm trying to get some more information from water quality just on what all the requirements would be either way, and so we'll work through that. So, I guess that's kind of left us in limbo, not wanting to let this issue slow down the process. So, that's why we kind of scrambled to put a waiver together, that if water quality says we're not going to maintain it, then you all have to do it per LFUCG standards, which the developer will do, but we'd all prefer it to be public. Go ahead and ask your question. I didn't think we were doing any more private pump stations. Right, and that's why it's a waiver, because a private pump station is not allowed. Generally, our approach, the government's approach to sewering our community is by gravity, and we only use pump stations where necessary. So, I think Brad's engineering work, not his personally, but his firm's engineering work has indicated perhaps they need a pump station here based on the topography. Is that accurate? Yes. So, being this is 120 acres undeveloped, and where the gravity would be is a golf course, which has some sewer, but deep into the golf course, there's just not a lot of available infrastructure near us to tie into. So, where the apartments are at a lower elevation, we would want to pump that up to Dabney, to where there'd be a main hole, and then it would feed into the gravity system that's going down Dabney. But we're just kind of bucking grade right now with how the topography sits. But would you build it to public standards? Oh, 100%. And would it ever come offline when the rest of the farm develops? No, because the rest of it's going toward Richmond Road. So, this is kind of the, there's a kind of a peak, yeah, there's a high point there that this is kind of going toward Dabney, where the rest of it will either go toward Yorkshire, there's a 10-inch line along Yorkshire, then there's a trunk line going through the golf course down closer to that neighborhood that's along Richmond Road. So, that begs the question, who's going to maintain it? Well, if water quality says we will accept it, then water quality. And if they say no, then our companies. Yeah, I think the initial thought process was this is one acre, I mean, sorry, one parcel. And if it was a commercial, all one owner, which it is currently, they might just have their own pump station because it's all owned by the same developer. But this being a subdivision, because of the two parcels, then that kicks it into maybe it should be public. So, it's just kind of working through what we want. So, I hate to keep doing this, but I live long enough to remember the consent decree and also to remember the Boonesboro situation. And that's why we're not opposed to any option. I mean, the question is going to be asked. We might as well address it right now. If I don't want it to be owned by a homeowner's association. So, what do you do about that? I'm not asking you. Yeah, there's no homeowner's association here. It's the same company building two projects. So, one project or development style is townhouses on the north side or plain north on this, I guess. It is north, I guess. And then the south side are apartments. So, that land is still going to be owned by that management company? It's a clay farm. A clay farm? Yeah, it means very little septic tank would work. I mean, it's as clay as it can get. It's beach ridge. And so, you're going to have to solve that issue. And I'd just as soon make everybody aware of it now is to wait until the hearing. Well, we worked at a different date. So, water quality is going to determine who's going to do this, not you all. They own and maintain it once it's built. So, we consult with them on what they think is best for the community. I just want to know who you're asking that's hearing. Oh, we'll probably have it resolved before then. And if the waiver stands, that will be presented. And if not, then they would withdraw it. Thank you. Presumably, the waiver would be a hardship waiver. Are you blinking? Yes, ma'am, the city didn't want to take this on because it would be just for one user. Because, assuming the way the topography lays, there's no real reason for anyone else to tie into this. It would be easier to do something else. So, it would just be for the apartments, which is commercial development. The townhomes can gravity drain because they're at a higher elevation. It's just this one section. I just have a quick question. So, obviously, I know you're the owner here. They're going to own even the townhomes. They're not so divided. But, I mean, conceivably, they could. Or if they precluded themselves in the future, you know, they sell to somebody else. I wouldn't want these townhomes. We're going to so divide and sell them. Yeah, we've set it up that it's one lot with all the townhomes. So, if they want to come back and do it later, it's going to be real hard. Okay. Okay. If they want to do that, I won't take it on. Okay. It's impractical. Yeah. I got you. Yeah, sorry. Big can of worms. And so, yes, to your point, Ms. Worth, yes, we would hopefully have more information by Thursday of next week to be able to say, yes, this is what we have to do to move forward. And then the rest of it is, as Chris said, a lot of cleanup stuff. The plan is almost identical to what we saw in the zone change earlier in the spring. And so, just, again, the townhome and the apartments below it. So, happy to answer any questions. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public comment? Being done, we'll bring it back to the committee. Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation of approval on plan MJDP 26-52 White Farm with the noted 14 conditions. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye. All right, we're unanimous. All right, go to the next item. Okay, we're going to move down the agenda. You'll see in your package you should have a revised staff report. This is going to be for PLN MJDP 26-55 John and Nick Collins property and Bennett and Bond development. The Lexington, yeah. This is the first zone change that we have on the agenda today. They are, it's, the property is split zoned. It has P1 and B2A and they're wanting to rezone it to all being B2A. So that they can create an apartment building on it. We're at the corner of East Main Street and Kentucky Avenue there. We have woodland over in this area. There's an existing home here and a larger home here. They're wanting to tear down the home in the middle and this is a vacant lot on the end. So they're going to rezone the property on to the B2A for a five-story multifamily residential building. The development plan requirement on the revised plan, the requirements not met, is to modify location of transit stop to eliminate conflicts. They have a transit stop down in this location right now that overlaps the sidewalk. So we need to review that. Provide an eight-foot landscape buffer along the adjacent R3 property boundaries to be used in conjunction with the six-foot fence. Remove usable open space from balconies unless they're available to everyone. Connect access drives between the two parking areas. They have this other home here in this location. It has a driveway that goes into the back for the parking and then the proposed parking comes off Kentucky Avenue. They have parking underneath the structure, but they also have some outdoor parking and we were hoping that these two would connect. Should this ever be redeveloped, the driveway in the front would be removed off of Main Street. Then we have a waiver, which Jeremy can speak about. Design considerations was just to the Division of Engineering and address sanitary sewer capacity and conform to the system that has capacity. Plan questions. The parking lot connection. Discuss mitigation of four significant trees. There's a burr oak, magnolia, and a ginkgo. Then there's another large tree in the back of Elm. We have a ginkgo in this location, a burr oak in this location, magnolia. And with this development, they will all be removed with this structure. The burr oak will be staying on the property, but they have a generator and a transformer all with inside the drip line of the burr oak on the property. What is the proposal for the stormwater management? And then there's discussed place builder criteria. The stack recommends approval provided the Urban County Council approves the zone change to the B2A. And then we have engineering, traffic, urban forester, open space, Department of Environmental Quality, and then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met hereon. And with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions? Just to clarify, when you said the burr oak will remain, you're going to try and figure out how to protect it when they're doing all that work? What's the deal? That's the question. The idea of putting a generator within the drip line of what they show as the boundaries of the burr oak, placing a generator, plus there's a KU transformer here, those were all kind of questions that we haven't really gotten an answer from. I guess they're going to try to protect it as best they can. They also have parking inside that area because if that drip line comes down here, it's all within the drip line of that burr oak, I think. Can you go back to the aerial? It's already garaged back there of some sort. And then the parking lot on the adjacent parcel where the interior design office is. So to some degree, its root system has been impacted already. I think our goal is obviously to lessen that. And then to clarify, Cheryl said we want it to connect. It's required. The two parking lots are required to connect when they're on the same development plan. So by bringing in the interior design office for a zone change, even though they don't have any plan to reuse or redevelop it today, those two parking areas adjacent to each other are required to connect. There is a tree of heaven. Tree of heaven. And Jeremy will kind of address that nearby. That can go. That's what we were thinking, too. We found it was an invasive species. Very invasive, yeah. But they're trying to keep that. That's why they're... Yeah. And then, as Cheryl mentioned, redevelopment of the office there, the interior design office, potentially from going from a P1 to a B2A, obviously there's a lot more uses and could redevelop. So by having a connection between the two parking lots off Kentucky, ultimately you could reduce that access on Main Street and make it so there's not as many access points through there. Did you say reduce or remove Main Street? Well, if the parking lot's in the back connect, you can remove it from Main Street. It would be whenever they proposed some future development on that lot. But we're just planning ahead. Thank you. Cheryl, to clarify, the building on the corner isn't included? That large building on the other corner? No, no, no, no. That's Woodland. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I thought so. So that building is present and staying? That's staying. But this building here will be removed. Okay. And this is a vacant lot at this current time. Correct. And is there proposed development right now on the one that is remaining? Are there any development, no parking or anything? Nope. Okay. They just want to have it as part of the rezoning process. The driveway out onto Main Street, did you say it will be removed? It will be removed when they redevelop that lot. Okay, okay. I'm sorry. I think that would be the goal. Not with this. Okay. That's why we're kind of looking for the connection to the adjacent property so that in the future, should this be redeveloped, that they have that connection already right here. Do we know how many units we're talking about? 16, I believe. 16? Okay. One other question. If memory serves me correctly, the vacant lot is parking, and I thought there was a reciprocal parking for the Camel Club across the street. What's going to happen with that? That's between them and the Camel Club, I think. Yeah, we're not having required parking anymore. Do what? We don't have required parking. But wouldn't they? I think they better talk to Camel Club. Wouldn't there be an agreement? A private agreement. A private agreement. Okay. Yes, it's not some. I don't know. They're currently utilizing a lot of the adjacent property. Yeah, sure. That's my understanding. The one down the street where McDonald's used to be was used for that. Okay, thanks. Okay, Jeremy. So as Ms. Galt mentioned, the applicant is requesting a waiver of 16-6B, which does require parking lot connectivity, three other structure. It's a little bit difficult to see on here. The justification for the waiver, the applicant states they'll lose these three parking spots here, as well as potential removal of the Burr Oak, which is right there, the center line, or the center is there, and then the Tree of Heaven. It's a little bit difficult to see the edge of the drip line, but it extends almost all the way up to the property line here and then over to the edge of the building, so it's a fairly large drip line there. One of the issues is that if this property does redevelop, I think we sort of touched on that already, that the goal would be to remove this drive here, and with it going to the B2A zone, we would expect it to develop in a fairly intense manner that would probably consume most of the width of the lot, so a drive to Main Street might not even be feasible to get the kind of density that we would be looking for for a B2A. And then additionally, keeping a Tree of Heaven is maybe not the best prospect, considering that it is an invasive species. It's considered a serious threat by many kind of the ecologists, UK, USDA. Those types of people have labeled it as a pest species, essentially. Well, it's also a host to the spotted lanternfly, which is also destructive to the forest and a big concern recently, so using the Tree of Heaven as a justification for a waiver is maybe a little bit questionable. As well as losing parking spaces, there's 2.5 spaces roughly per unit, which is well above what we typically see in a B2A zone, so even with losing those three spots, it would still be at 2.25. So I think maybe we've got some concerns, I guess, so to speak, about the waiver justifications. But if you all have any questions about it, I can certainly address those. Any questions about the waiver? Bottom line, are you recommending or are you holding off a decision at this point? I think we're going to wait as far as the waiver. We don't really typically do recommendations on waivers at subdivision committee level. Does that mean you will next week or in two weeks or three? Certainly, yes. Okay, great. All right, thank you. Applicant? Sorry, place builder. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. For public engagement with this site, there was a neighborhood meeting that was attended by members of staff. The applicant can give you some kind of information on what was discussed within that. This site being located on Main Street, the applicant has kind of put it within the context of a second-tier urban. Within our staff report, we kind of talk about the appropriateness of considering this as a part of a downtown place type. There's a lot of overlap between the two, and ultimately something like a mixed-use project that's six stories or so in height generally kind of falls within the guidelines for both of those. So really the conversation from the zone change side is just making sure that we've got connections and having a discussion about what kind of future redevelopment would look like for the piece that they're not showing today. As has been the case with kind of the past couple of zone changes that have been in sort of close adjacency to our historic districts, you will be getting prior to the hearing a report from the historic preservation staff about the existing structures on the site, but that isn't ready at this time. So we'll give you kind of the rundown on those as we move closer to the hearing date. But at this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions about the place builder side of things. Questions regarding place builder? Thank you. Thank you. All right, now we'll have the applicant. Good morning. Brandon Gross here on behalf of the applicant. I have Tony Barrett with me. I'll talk about a couple things. Number one, on the requirements not met, the modified location of transit stop, we're going to talk with David and Scott about how we can do that. We may pull the transit stop onto our property and create an easement so that it's not within the sidewalk. So that's something we just need to discuss. We think we're going to get that issue worked through. Number two, provide an eight-foot landscape buffer. We've requested a variance, and the staff report recommends approval for that variance, so for this afternoon. So that's item number two. Item number three, I guess I'm confused because we've been told to remove and then add, and now we're being told to remove again. I haven't had a chance to speak with Eve, so I didn't want to remove that until I spoke with Eve. I just hadn't had a chance to speak with her. Okay, so we think that one's going to go away because we think that is not an appropriate comment. But staff's working through that one. And then the connect access drives between the two parking areas. I'll briefly discuss that a little bit. Let me turn this on. And then I'll let Tony talk about some of the other things that I don't address. So currently, while these were both built as residents, they've not been used as residential housing. They've not been used as housing for decades. They're both P1. I can't recall when they were zoned P1, but they've been used for office purposes for a number of years. So while they were initially when constructed residences, they're not currently homes. They're office spaces. And so what we have is here, I think it's potentially right here, is the bur oak tree. The plan is to preserve that. But as Tracy pointed out, the existing conditions are the garage is in the drip line, the parking area is in the drip line, the parking area is in the drip line. We're going to work with Eric about how we can best preserve that tree. Our plan is to keep that tree and to preserve it. So we're going to work with Eric. We're going to meet with him after today's meeting. And so part of it is, you know, existing conditions already. For example, the ginkgo we are not going to be able to preserve because it's located in the building, but it is literally a trunk coming out of the parking lot is what the ginkgo is. It's completely paved around it. And so that one we're not going to preserve the tree of heaven while I personally am anti-invasive species. I think technically under the ordinance it is a significant tree, and there's no carve out. We are happy to remove it if that's what we're being told to do. But generally, if it's significant, we're trying to preserve as many significant trees. Also, the elm tree, which I believe is in this back corner. So the elm tree, once the garage is moved, it will actually have more space than it does now. And so we're going to need to work. We realize we're going to need to work with Eric and the engineers to fence off and do what we can to have a tree protection. But our plan is of the four trees that were identified, the bur oak and the elm will be preserved. The ginkgo and the magnolia will come down. And then we have offered up off-site mitigation in Woodland Park or somewhere else to mitigate the loss of that tree canopy. Is that something we're just working with Eric on? So that just kind of gives you where we are on the trees. But our plan is we're trying to preserve as many of these trees as we can. Essentially, if it's outside of the building footprint, we're preserving it. And so that's where the trees are. Now, the ironic thing is is that if we were to build the parking lot connection, we would actually be building more VUA within the canopy of the bur oak. So we would be losing vegetative space. But the idea on this is this is the way these parking lots. One potential idea would be we've asked for the waiver. We think the waiver is appropriate. We could always have a note that says, if at such time as this property is ever redeveloped, that we would, if it's on the same development plan, we could have a note where there would be an access would be created at that time. At this point, you know, we have an office. The plan is this building is going to be preserved. It's going to be a lived workspace is what the Schnabels plan on doing with this property. But we could put a note that says if this gets redeveloped and it becomes more intense, that we could eliminate those spaces and make that connection. So we could have a waiver that's conditioned upon a note that if for some reason what the concern is occurs in the future, we have a remedy to fix that. And so that's something we'll need to talk with Tracy. And then we've got a meeting on a different plan next week. So I've already told Carson we need to piggyback this plan to talk about some of those issues with planning staff next week. And so that's kind of just a little bit of background. So it's really this tree and this tree will be the two. And then these trees will be preserved. And so I think, let me see if there's anything else I need to discuss. So, yeah, we've requested that waiver. We've requested the variance. We are in discussions about the mitigation. We are preserving two of the four identified trees on site. We will, I'm on to the next page, this standard drawing for entrances we'll take care of. I'll let Tony talk about the stormwater and sanitary sewer. And then on the place builder, as Mr. Crum so eloquently said, place builder is a flexible. So you could have one property and it could fall within three different. I mean, I could make a justification this is a corridor. So, but if the staff is saying we would like you to discuss the five or six downtown place type items that are not within the urban, I'll supplement. We'll add those discussion points because one property could be both downtown to somebody and second tier urban to somebody else. We chose second tier urban given us following the downtown master plan, and this is kind of in the midtown area. So that's what we chose, but we're more than happy to supplement our information to provide them the details if this were a downtown. Same thing with the high residential. I'll go through and check off which ones we're missing. I'll supplement that over the next week or so and give that to staff. That's all I have. You had questions for me. If not, I'll turn it over to Tony who actually should be handling since this is mostly design. But it's a microphone. Any questions? Yeah, I really don't have any more to address there. I think my counsel covered it all. Clay Johnson is our civil engineer. He'll be working out the stormwater management and the sanitary sewer issues, and he's addressing those currently. So I think we're good. We did meet with Eric on site initially and reviewed all the trees. And interestingly, I guess, is just over time, there's about a foot elevation difference on the fence line with the Schnabel property where the trees are being about a foot above. And there's no retaining wall. It's just the wood fence has been holding it back for, I don't know, probably as long as 50 years or whatever. They probably supplemented that a little bit. But with the redevelopment of the Calgo property, we're allowing room to transition that grade a little better than it is now where it's grading where it's parking right up to the fence. So it will give those trees a little more air to breathe, the roots. Just out of curiosity, the last time we had a mention of elms, and we approved removal because we were told those weren't healthy. This is a healthy elm, is that? It appears to be healthy, yeah. It's in that very back corner, kind of stuck in the corner of the property where the garage is basically right on top of it. A volunteer. It's probably a volunteer. I mean, yeah, nobody would have planted it there. So, Tony, design-wise, I heard 16 residential units. What were we talking about as far as parking? We have a garage below that allows two spaces per unit, and then the surface parking is only for guests. Okay, so garage being underground? First floor. First floor, okay. Yeah, first floor of garage and lobby. So the condo units themselves will have dedicated parking garage, and then we'll have, I think it's six spaces. Total of six on our lot, or seven? We'll have six. Six, seven. Currently we have six or seven spaces for guests and for deliveries and handicap accessible. Okay. So very few surface parking spaces. Thank you. Who owns the house closest to Main Street? Currently the big house is Billy Justice's office, and then the one going towards downtown is owned by the Schnabel family, and then the next one is that Wellington? Yeah. Wellington Arms, the five-story condo building is the next one. Well, it looks to me like you're getting awfully close to 11 pounds of flour in a five-pound sack. Does that make any sense to you? I mean, it does except for our comprehensive plan says to put as much flour in a sack as we can, and that's what we're trying to do. It doesn't matter what it tears up, just put it in the sack. It's not about what it tears up. The hard part about infill and redevelopment is that infill on surface parking lots lay up everyone's favor, but redevelopment generally means you remove a structure and you redevelop it into a different building. Lexington, for better or worse, we like the infill, but we ignored the second part of that statement, infill and redevelopment. This is a redevelopment. Currently there are no housing structures on any of these properties except for the one, the small one, the small on Kentucky, this one right here, that small structure. So we're going to take less than an acre that is currently housing one person and we're going to house 16 to 48, depending on family size and other things. So these are going to be two-bedroom houses. I mean, condo units, they will be for homeownership, which is also something, a rarity, is it's not going to be an apartment building. It's going to be a homeownership. So while I understand your sentiment, Mr. Penn, we're not, you know, we are not purposely trying to just take down things. I'm not saying you're purposely trying to. I'm talking about if you remember, we had a big bur oak tree out on Herzberg Road. It became Lincoln Logs. Correct, because God hated that tree. So have you talked to him about this one? What's that? Have you talked to him about this one? About, well, we don't know. I have not yet called in, but the point is that tree, if you recall, that tree was preserved by Ball Homes. They built a huge buffer. They didn't disturb it, and the storm blew it over. It had nothing to do with the development. The storm blew that over. Well, I mean, I'm. Yeah. Yeah, that was the tree that was saved. A lot of effort was put into saving that tree. Trees are living things, so they, even if we do everything we can to protect it, they may not survive. Well, I mean, it's not the fact that the bur oak tree doesn't need to be saved. The fact is, if you do something to the drip line, you're just accelerating the deterioration of the tree. So who are we kidding here? We are removing pavement from under the drip line. So we are reducing the impact on the bur oak and the tree of heaven. We're pulling that pavement back where it's now literally a foot from the trunk. We're pulling it back. I think it's about eight feet, maybe more, where we're having the parking. Plus, you've got a parking garage currently sitting in a portion of the drip line. The garage. Yeah. That's an existing condition. So this, I mean, for the most part, this whole back area is really vehicle use area. It's not. I'll look at it. Okay. I'm sorry. One more. Considering where we are in the neighborhood involved and so forth, have there been any neighborhood engagement on this? We did. We met with them. We invited Belcourt, Aylesford, Kenwick. We're all in attendance at the meeting. Just ask them. Yeah, we met with them. What kind of attendance did you get? I don't know, 20? Yeah, 15 to 18 people showed up. Some of them were, you know, I mean, if you pulled this room, it's the same as everywhere else. No one is like, let me sign the petition to remove trees and houses in the city. And so there was concern, but there were a lot of people that said this is a good redevelopment site for this. Because, like, right now it's a half-empty lot, surface parking lot on essentially two-thirds of what's being redeveloped is surface parking and just unutilized open space. And so, and then, you know, some people said we want you to have retail on the bottom. Then we explained, well, we don't have retail on the bottom. We have parking on the bottom. And then they were happy because parking is a premium in this area. So they were happy we are completely parking our project and not going to be pushing cars onto the on-street parking. And so it's a balance. So I think at the end of the day, you know, the people that are hammers and they just have their one issue, they're probably not necessarily happy. But on the balance of things, I mean, it was a good meeting. It was constructive. And we have another one coming up on the 18th. Yeah, so we have a follow-up meeting with them. We were going to have, we had our first meeting and then we're going to go through the committees, then have another meeting before hopefully the public hearing at the end of the month. So we can explain any tweaks we've made based upon comments from the staff and comments from the planning commission members of the subcommittees. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Do we have any public comment? All right. We're back to staff. I mean, to the committee. Chair, I move for approval of PLMJDP 2655 Collins Property and Bennett Bond Development with the attached seven conditions required by staff. Motion's been made in second. All in favor? Aye. All right, we're unanimous. Thank you. Next plan, MJDP 2656 Encore Partners LLC Property. This is located at 5085-5191 Athens-Greensboro Road. The purpose of this plan is to depict a group residential development with 560 units in support of the requested zone change from an AR zone to an R4 zone. This plan is also in the urban growth management plan. So what you're looking at, this is I-75. This is Athens-Greensboro Road. So it's in this area here with a connection to Athens-Greensboro Road directly across from, is that Commerce? I can't remember the name of that. Competition. Yeah, yeah, right. So we're showing a street come in off of Athens-Greensboro and terminate in a cul-de-sac here with the multifamily arranged around the cul-de-sac. There's a road that intersects there and then stubs into the remainder of the property there and then with an intersection and a stub there as well. Here's a little bit more detail. Here's the cul-de-sac with the clubhouse and amenities and then with the multifamily wrapped around. And this is a detail showing the portion closer to Athens-Greensboro with the road coming in, terminating in the cul-de-sac, and then the stubs here. So we do have quite a bit of cleanup items on the plan. And then one of the main things that came up, and we discussed this in the pre-app but then also at the tech committee, is the UGMP shows this road connecting through. I believe I have a graphic of that. This is the aerial of the property, just kind of a little bit for reference. So our property is roughly this area here, this current plan. And so the UGMP showed the road connecting through. The applicants indicated that the topography is the reason that they're not showing it connect through. There's a natural drainage here and here as well. So you can kind of see this is the road that's depicted on the plan coming in with the connecting road and then the other stub road there, just kind of for orientation purposes. So at this time, there are no waivers requested. And then under the plan questions and concerns, we have some UGMP questions, and that's been a big discussion with this plan and the two after this with conformance with the UGMP, which states that typical intersection types for avenue should be roundabouts. So we're not seeing any roundabouts. The cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum length recommended for the UGMP, doesn't conform with the roadway or pardon me, does not conform with roadway network depicted in regulating plan area three, which is this, this area. Yep, sorry lost my Denote the concurrency requirements for residential buildings within quarter-mile of a town center. That's also requirement of the UGMP Loading and loading and unloading areas Compliance with the active depth recommendations and then We're asking for them to denote what the street types are in the cross sections And that again, that's for all three of the the UGMP plans The tech committee did recommend postponement Because we have questions regarding a second access point from Athens Boonesboro and that was a concern with fire if there's over certain number of units second access is required and And currently we just have one access on to Athens Boonesboro Road and they do exceed the 100 unit threshold for a second access and they're at 560 units. They're close to needing a third access For for fire safety So We did recommend or tech committee did recommend postponement and then if the plan is approved We do have the seven standard sign-offs for a zone change Including the council's approval of the zone change and with that I'll open it up to you all have any questions. I'd be happy to answer I guess one question right now You're talking about the main road going through According to the UGMP go back to the other one though. Okay. Yeah that one You did mention you got a step straight down in this lower left corner. Yes. Is that a step straight? In the upper left corner as well The here as well. Yeah. Yes, where would that connect to? Interior to the development so There the other future development future development, yeah, there's no current Yeah It does show it shows this connection going over with a second access Okay Okay, yeah, all right I'm just trying to understand everything because I Think because I guess I guess Mr. Kaley can explain the connectivity or reasons for not wanting to go one way or another so, okay Thanks I'm gonna say related question not the reasons for but Implications of not putting that through street through in terms of our complete streets model and traffic flow I'll just I'll just say I don't unless I'm mistaken I don't believe there's a there were cul-de-sac shown in any area of the UGMP at all and so this is the first development in this particular area of the five and It's a cul-de-sac. So I think that's That's our our consternation is down, you know When we when we met just opt you know with the applicant I think our at least traffic was well if we understand that some of the topography it It you need to come up with an alternative. I think would be our there's not an alternative I don't know just shooting going straight for cul-de-sac. I think was was not necessarily our What we wanted to see at least not initially Are these units I Think the applicant can answer that but I think they're rental Good morning, Daniel crumb planning staff again from the public engagement side of things The applicant did recently host a virtual meeting with I guess was extended to the neighborhood staff Did not attend that meeting so the applicant can give you some more information on who was able to attend and what kind of comments? That we had From the place builder side of things. Once again, this is in the expansion area So we have sort of the traditional place builder lane where they're placing this as medium density residential Which the the development does meet and they're kind of describing this as the first piece of kind of a new complete neighborhood Which once again staff is in agreement with most of our conversation about this is going to be how it meets or is in conflict With the UG MP. So those connections is really the main big driver We're seeing residential densities that are sort of close to what was called within the plan We'll be getting with the the applicant to kind of show What we were seeing as far as developable area and where those densities should be kind of lying But the connectivity pieces is a big major part not just for this development, but for also Let's see if I can bring the UG MP It's shown slightly off screen here but this extends further north to serve a medium density residential that is also sort of bound in to the left-hand side by These areas sort of a steep slope that are sort of shown in the plan to be kind of conservation areas So it's connectivity not just within this piece, but also the pieces further up And so that's sort of a big sticking point with staff on Getting with the applicant to see what they are seeing there And hearing any alternatives or how they're going to address the connectivity point that we think is essential for this area of the UG MP Could you say a little bit more about what you said? It's sort of close to the densities and how close is it? so I think the applicant is proposing five hundred and sixty and I think the the Land use map in front of you would show a corresponding Total number of units of I think around 600. I'll grab the specifics So we are within bounds. Once again, the intent within the UG MP was you know? This is the regulating plan if the applicant can show us the areas that are undevelopable due to steep slopes Then that area acreage can sort of be taken out of that equation So there is a little bit of wiggle room there But once again, we want to make sure and just to be clear, this is the absolute minimums, right? There's the the there's sort of the floor that's prescribed by each of these sort of high density medium density low density land uses So this is just getting this enough to kind of meet the floor for what was recommended in that area Any other questions about place builder, thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll have the applicant Good morning, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Ball Homes and the Encore Development. I have good news and bad news for you all this morning. The good news is we understand the postponement We're not here to fight anything about that whatsoever. The bad news is you're gonna have to hear me talk for a little bit So We are starting to see some trends in this kind of new expansion area We're starting to see it with this property with Dennis's property That's gonna be later with the property that you're about to hear the okay gentry. We saw it with the Basler property as well The road system is a problem we are trying to work with the land as much as we possibly can We have a comprehensive plan that says that we are not supposed to try to Move as much Kind of dirt as possible in environmentally sensitive areas. We're trying to limit Creek crossings. We're trying to limit the amount of damage that we are doing to our kind of environmental area That is why we propose the plan with regards to the cul-de-sac We are more than happy to sit down with staff and kind of walk through everything to make sure that the connectivity That you all want to see is going to occur. We also need to do it in a not just economically efficient way in an environmentally efficient way and where that road crosses is The worst possible place to cross a creek We've talked about this a whole lot during the urban growth master plan There are a whole lot of creek crossings that are being proposed that are Not The right place to put a road we created master plan and the planning the Consultants told you all that they looked at this from a 2d perspective not a 3d perspective They looked at it from a perspective From if this was a blank piece of paper, where should we try to put these roads? We now are getting into reality where we are trying to work with the land and make sure that these roads are in the most efficient place possible so we believe in connectivity we want to have the connectivity that the staff wants we want to Make sure that all of this land is easily accessible whether it's multimodal whether it is vehicular We have to look at this with a very serious eye once we actually are looking at the dirt itself We saw just across the street where the stadium was built how much rock got dug up Piles in piles of rock was dug up just south of this particular spot We're dealing with the exact same type of situation We are going to have to really be careful with regards to how we treat this land and how we Develop it in a responsible manner That being said we have Submitted an exhibit with regards to density that shows that we are in complete compliance with what is asked for What I would call a very high density what neighbors would call way way too high of a density That is being shown on here there is steep slopes to say the very least on this piece of property and We are going to make sure that whatever plan gets put in front of you is done in a responsible manner and Is in working with the plan with planning staff and also working with the land? This is a much bigger question and you're about to hear even more from me unfortunately on the next question or on the next application with Concerns that we have with the urban growth master plan and how we're able to actually bring it from plan to reality And this is going to be one of those conversations The road system in this plan is going to be the biggest conversation you all hear for the next Five ten years as we bring this online I know that Dennis's project has has very similar situations with regards to what they are proposing from the road network in Comparison to what the actual plan calls for All of that being said We are very good with postponement. We understand We are here to sit down with staff to work through all of these issues We know that this is going to be a very very lengthy zone change I told that as far as the neighborhood engagement by the way only two people showed up and all of them cared about the Project that we're about to talk about next they weren't actually concerned about this project But I told them that this is going to be months upon months of conversation We know we're not moving forward At the end of the month to say the least I'm happy to answer questions. I just wanted to give you all a bit of a taste of What I know is going to be the big fight here is how how roads are gonna work on this development We want to bring in the density. We want to make sure that we're doing it in a responsible way We want to make sure we're working with the land And It's gonna be an issue and so I'm here for any questions But we very much understand the postponement recommendation and we certainly are not surprised and or are going to fight that We're looking forward to talking with staff Roy I just wanted to add that the one cul-de-sac that we do show up there got the overall Road plans out there doesn't change anything there's still multiple ways to go from Richmond Road into the site and access the two potential I-75 crossings This one is just at a really wide location next to the interstate if we're doing as you see there the bright red We're doing residential it could end right there It it doesn't need to make the next connection because we have parallel roads all running in the same direction One one thing I did forget concurrency This is a residential development it is scheduled By the urban growth master plan to be residential. Yes. We are within a quarter mile of a town center We're not proposing commercial I don't know how exactly we meet any type of concurrency Recommendations when we are proposing the exact use that is on the plan And it's not supposed to be mixed use on this piece of property This is exactly what we kind of talked about when this plan got approved about the concerns of when there is a commercial Use that is being proposed on somebody else's piece of property But we're trying to do exactly what the plan calls for we don't have control over what time they move Forward and that has always been my big concern It's part of the parcel right the town center is on we do not have any control over that town center We only have a contract on this Portion of the property we don't and that we can't we can't force anyone to sell other pieces of their property the owner Does have control over that and we do not the applicant does not but but? We are not no one in this room except for you and Rory. We're part of the conversation about negotiating How much land to buy from the owner so that doesn't? negate the Correct recommendation from the I understand GMP We are trying to put in place the exact use that is being proposed in the exact location That it is being proposed, but some of the hamstrings that you are talking about Are created because you're only developing a portion of the property the owners are only willing to sell what they're willing to sell We don't have any control over that situation it is it is a bigger conversation I very much understand if you want density like in this exact location where it's being proposed We are proposing density in this very location where it is being proposed I? Can't force a commercial development to come but in that it's a much bigger question But it is something that I did want to bring up because it did get referenced again. We're good with postponement We have no issues whatsoever in that regards We know that this is going to be a conversation, and we're very much looking forward to that But I did want to specifically address concurrency since it did get brought up in the staff report and that owner is the one signing the plan The applicant is who the applicant is I represent who I represent right? But when you bring in your development plan two weeks after your zone change that owner Will need to sign the plan so there should be a conversation about the rest of their property I understand you can share that with them absolutely okay, mr.. Murphy is here. He is here He does represent so happy to answer any questions, I know I threw a lot at you, and I know that I did it in a manner that I'm not normally doing In this room, and so I do apologize for that, but you're about to get another Mouthful on the next application as well if you go to the other Picture that shows the footprint of the buildings and the streets and so forth Okay very good Just speaking speaking to the connectivity so I mean we could do What what was done in most of the 80s 90s and 2000s and build a spine road and put cul-de-sacs off of it There's still connectivity. It's just about how the the variety of connectivity connecting different portions So I think that's where it's important because I still think what you said is It's not untrue, but I could the next plan come in and say well work. We're cul-de-sac in this But there's this road over here. We still got all our connections sure and that's just not the point if we look at as a total plan I Think once you I'm not saying there's no flexibility But it is definitely frustrating the first one comes in and we're gonna cul-de-sac this one Do you have the benefit of there being no other proposed cul-de-sacs? Sure, and so and it and that's then that's I guess that's where it's like okay we if we take this logic and expand it then we're kind of we've got a 20 years in the future when I'm still here People complaining that I can't get off their street because there's just one way in and out or two ways in and out and there's 20,000 people to live here Like that that's something that we're very open to the problem that we are kind of running into is That there is a creek that runs on this outsides area Go forward go forward no backwards middle button, okay And It's what's kind of shown right there is Like you know here is the property that we're talking about basically right here There is a massive Floodplain Roy's better at this than I am with regards to this Of the creek and the crossings of it So every time you ask for a crossing on the creek Especially at a lighter spot It's more expensive, more land movement One of the things the staff and I have been working on Is the street profile of what it would have to be You know the elevation change 20 feet of film to get over the interstate There's a bunch of stuff that's We're getting to look at I will say that This is the third plan I've had In the UGMP here Oh sorry So it's the third plan I've had on the UGMP here And the streets have been the problem every time The Miller one got postponed because it's street was The required street was to remove the Go through the UK substation and then Continue past us and cross Floodplain three more times Cane break The same quadrant area We took a few months to get it To match There was discussions about where we could connect As far as towards Blue Sky and the areas that needed to be connected there And what we could and couldn't show because Of how the UGMP is drawn And so It's I don't know if y'all could speak to the The new exaction whatever Whatever it's called Privilege fees Is there an indication of how that can be utilized to Leverage things or is that something I'm not as familiar with that because it's kind of the Commissioner's office Could y'all speak to that or is that Not in this It's nebulous at best I would think that would be the most polite way to Describe the privilege fee situation But it Is Designed in such a way In Hopes that property owners are going to Play nice together The different private property owners all have to Come to an agreement and then present it to Council and council can bless it If one property Owner doesn't play ball I don't know what happens The exaction program was very different Because it instituted A Statement that said you all will Play ball The current program is hoping everyone Will play ball And we will see how that goes In this situation You're only Talking about three different property owners The Who's up front The Begley's and then the Guest family And so it makes sense For them all to play ball But Who owns on the other side of the Creek The Guest family So just on the other side of that green line So the Begley's own a Substantial portion up The Guest is Kind of tucked into the back corner So Where the crossing Your applicant would be building something That connects to the rest of the owner's property Correct You're not really having to play Ball with anybody except for the person you're Buying the property with The person that is up front The Begley family and The Guest family So you've already worked for access up front We are Currently engaged in conversations Yes Begley's Will benefit from you all developing This front piece and then also Benefit from the Orange medium density Recommendation in that corner So that as a property owner It's mutually beneficial to Connect on both sides You would hope so The problem is that we don't know Like I cannot speak on the Begley's behalf I cannot speak on the Guest family's behalf I cannot speak on the IV CP Folks up front I cannot speak on their behalf Because Rational conversations would tell you That yes, this is in everyone's benefit But that doesn't I can't guarantee that And I can't say that in front of a governmental Body that says without a doubt Everyone's going to play ball Everyone's going to agree to build the same road In the same location That is mutually beneficial Based on what a plan was When that road Is too expensive Where it is being proposed to cross I think maybe the better question is Where can it cross? And that is exactly what we are trying to propose Is that you have the exact Same connectivity that is required We are just trying to Get around the stream In the most advantageous position And that's going to be the biggest Conversation that we have On all of these plans moving forward And we are very much Okay, again, postponement But we are talking with you all To try to work this out So we are not doing this in public I think it's a good conversation That the planning commission needs to understand It is exactly why I am here this morning To have this conversation And try to put a giant Giant spotlight On what is going to be The biggest conversation we have On all of these properties For the next decade From the planning perspective Our question is not How do we not cross It's where can we cross? Correct And that is what I am trying to assure This body Planning staff, traffic engineering We want to have this conversation We want the connectivity We want to make sure it is done On the right place As opposed to just what the dots say On a map that was done Or said in a 2D world As opposed to Actually a 3D world That was their words Not mine To David's question And the funding of it It's not decided What level of road Or if the roads are even in this Agreement They are pretty much set for the sewers Like OPSS fees Are set up that way for sewers There are discussions on roads And what roads would also have to be part of This development where All property owners paid in As they developed The last one I was at We asked a question about the property owners Who have 30 or 40% Of their properties either a flood plain Or sinkholes or something that is not developable So how do you Why do they pay the same Rates towards Undevelopable land Just because They're in there Their value is greatly decreased And the cost would be Higher for them So it's not worked out yet Tomorrow morning is a meeting if you want to go to it You know sitting here listening To you all You all are going to have to Get together whether you want to or not I agree You know I mean it's one of those kind of situations That planning can only do so much Exaction fees have to be Not exaction whatever Privilege It's a privilege to be able to operate this So privilege fees Have to be decided But I See going forward that There's going to be a meeting of the minds With the landowners And I don't know who drives that But most things Money drives that So it might be to everybody's advantage To sit down and talk about this Because if I remember right There's supposed to be a bridge At Hamburg Over top of the creek Oh the Hamburg one There's supposed to be two bridges across the interstate So my What happened was we developed Hamburg And then we did a oops And we let them out And make them build a bridge We can't afford to do that On this one So You know you talk about you being here a long time I've been here a long time too and I will tell you To do the same thing over and over Expect the different results It's the definition of insanity So I suggest that You all have a private meeting With the owners and come to some kind of agreement That we're going to look at this road situation Because you can't do it Are we on pace at the time? We are It's unfortunate that Lexington has chosen To push all of this On to private property owners To figure out themselves But that's the reality that we are in And that is what exactly we are doing The purpose of my spiel this morning Was very much to Shine a light on What I know is going to be A conversation With all of you all For the next decade We're going to be talking about This urban growth master plan For a long long time And how we can come into compliance with it And how we can also work with the land Because that's the most important part Is how do we Work with the land while also Implementing all of Planning staff's and traffic engineering's Desires on Connectivity and the multimodal Aspect of this Nothing about what I'm trying to say this morning Is directed towards them Or criticism of them In any way shape or form It is just to Basically preview what The next few years are going to be like You know, Nick, you're making this harder than it is And the reason for it is You've got three families to deal with You could have 30 families to deal with And on Winchester Road we're going to So you might as well Practice on these 30 And that is what we're doing Like, we're going to Have to figure it out I've said this before It is why I was Kind of so grateful That, you know, the Bizzacks and the Lawsons Went against their best Financial self-interest and pulled Themselves out of the expansion area That was At the end Of the day, it will be great Because we're not going to talk about an Overbrook situation again On Winchester Road That's unusual And so I'm very happy about that We are only going to be talking about five different families But one of them, as Rory kind of Indicated Is 70% floodplain How you There's supposed to be a road that goes directly across That 70% floodplain How you get that person to Engage in a conversation To allow that development We're going to have to see And this is difficult And I don't mean to make it more difficult Than I want to Because I want my job to be very easy But We're going to have to And all of us are going to have to It's not just us, it's us That are going to have to figure that out And so I am looking forward to Sitting down with planning To talk about the road Situation And I hope to Bring back a plan that is going to have Full endorsement from planning staff From traffic engineering The good news is that so far Fingers crossed We've yet to really receive any neighbor opposition So that's good Well you know land and trees don't talk But they do And one tree on Harrodsburg Said I'm hollow and have been hollow For a hundred years Even when Abraham Lincoln Took a nap underneath me And shockingly The storm Proved That that tree was right I'm sorry I have to You know I had no choice I don't want You know what It's a good thing that's on tape Because you're going to want to listen to that My concern for it right now Is you can talk to planning until you're blue in the face You need to talk to people that own the land And try to create some kind of agreement by roads We absolutely have to What The grace I'm asking for Well I'm not asking for it today I'm going to be asking for it Is We've got to figure out the right place to cross And just because The urban growth master plan Has a line where it is That doesn't mean that that is the actual Right place to cross a creek We've got to figure out the right place to cross And I'm hoping that As we go through this process As we go through the next couple Zone changes All this We can have that honest conversation And we've got to prove it To be very clear Like I'm standing in front of you We have to prove that this is the right place to cross As opposed to what is proposed But what we know so far Is what is proposed On this particular piece of property Is not the best place to cross But we've got to get everybody comfortable with that And if not You're going to turn us down And we understand that You've got to prove it to the owners first Yes We need their cooperation Yes I know I'm aware This is not my usual presentation You all know that This is Well but it is true It was hollow We droned it Ok Thank you all That would be that one Ok Is there any public comment? Alright Let's bring it back to the committee Yes Go right ahead I move for postponement of PLN NMJDP 2656 For reasons We're not ready to approve it Second Motion is made and seconded All in favor? Alright Can I make a comment before we move to the next one? This is actually a request And at some point I probably should make it In front of the whole commission I would really like To have a session In our work session sometime soon About the privilege fees I will Ok Madam Chair Oh yes I will do that When I said for the whole commission But just in general When we did the solar We set up a solar work group And we got a lot of really good education about that I don't think it's finalized yet No that's ok What I'm saying is we did not have a similar process For the data centers And so we were kind of walking into that Scrounging around whatever information We personally could educate ourselves with Because we didn't really have An education session about that So I think What I'm looking for to the chair And for you guys and planning staff Is to think about helping us Get better educated about some unfamiliar Situations that will be useful To us down the road Thanks Thank you Ok we'll go With the next item Alright next plan MJDP 2657 Basler and others And Walnut Hill Manor Ok Gentry This is located At 5530, 5600 and 5660 Athens Boonesboro Road So our previous plan Fix that Was up here On the Northwest corner of the Athens Boonesboro I-75 Interchange and this is the southeast Corner It's not the actual corner But it's that area So we have Athens Boonesboro Coming through at an angle This is Blue Sky Right here With Cane Break right here And then obviously I-75 To the left of the subject property The purpose of this plan Is to depict a mixed use development In support of the requested zone change From an AR zone to a B5P zone And I'm sorry From an AR zone and B5P zone To a corridor B3 zone To a curb zone Ok so They're depicting A road network There's a connection across From Blue Sky Connection across from Cane Break And then another connection here That stubs into the property to the south On the I'm going to go to this really quick Our UGMP Regulating area map For this area and it shows This connection to Cane Break A connection to Blue Sky that goes all the way through And then this connection to the right As well as a service road Along I-75 That does connect to the property There So I'm going to go back So they're showing a commercial Building here A family at the southern Portion of the property And then a commercial With a hotel here Kind of in the center of the property Or of the development Plant We'll kind of go over here So there's a small parcel Here that's included And then some properties Along Athens Boonesboro And then properties that Kind of front the interior Roads With the multifamily Kind of all grouped south Of this road Here and then with a Open space storm water area there Or storm water I'm trying to think So There are quite a few cleanup Items on this one as well But just kind of the standard things that Need to be cleaned up Adding notes and things like that The Kind of the concern that isn't Necessarily related to the UGMP is that for The B3 A lot of the parcels That are corner lots have VUA in the front yards Of the properties And so that's a concern that we had With it conforming With the zoning ordinance With a lot of VUA And then the cross connectivity Maybe should have centered this a little bit differently With the The hotel property Doesn't connect to any of the adjacent properties Even though They kind of all have contiguous Parking areas And then we have a concern about the Limited number of parking That's immediately adjacent to the Residential The applicant can probably speak more to this But I believe their plan is to Utilize the commercial areas For the residential parking So that was another concern that we had That's not strictly Related to the UGMP Questions At this time they're not requesting any waivers And then the other One of the other concerns is that We don't know the exact number of units on the hotel That's proposed But if it's more than 100 it needs a second entrance And currently it does not have that So then we get into the Plan questions and concerns And under the UGMP questions Some of the same things The typical intersection types That are recommended for the UGMP For avenues Should be roundabouts or mini roundabouts This also doesn't Strictly conform With the roadway network This blue sky extension shows going all the way through And on The proposed plan It comes Into the property and Intersects in a T To this other Interior road and does not continue all the way through So that was one thing with the UGMP That The discussion that we've already had About the proposed road networks And how that doesn't conform with that It's kind of similar concerns That we have There's also the Concurrency requirement This one does have The mixed use so there is residential and commercial So the concurrency would apply Here as well Depict the loading and unloading zones Demonstrate compliance with the active Depth requirements No more than one non-alley curb cut Per block face is allowed And there are quite a few curb cuts On the block faces On the plan Denote and depict the bicycle parking Street Denote the street trees on the cross section Depict a block perimeter of 2,000 linear feet or less And that's a requirement of the UGMP Depict shared driveways And inter-parcel access And then to Depict the And then to depict the Rural service area setback and buffer And the Tech committee for similar reasons Recommended postponement for this plan And with that I'll open it up to you all If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer Any questions for staff? Thank you Madam Chair Chris, do we know the number Of units in the hotel? No Do we know the residential number? I don't remember Somebody can find out 430 Is what I'm hearing behind me 430, ok You mentioned the service road running next to the Interstate Where's the connection? It's not depicted on the plan It's Shown on the UGMP regulating area But it's not shown on their plan Something needs to happen Just curious Make that a little bit smaller The upper left corner Looks like one large building Is that part of the plan? Ok Good deal, thank you Any other questions for staff? Good afternoon, or morning How long have we been here? Still here Daniel Crone Planning staff Once again the applicant kind of touched on The engagement piece in this Sort of in a very similar manner earlier With the previous presentation This was done via a zoom meeting Staff did not attend Looks like he got comments for this plan When they were discussing the previous piece So they can go into a little more detail with that Once again we have a plan that's within the Urban growth master plan area So we've got both place builder As well as what is being recommended with the plan The applicant is Because of its mix of sort of commercial uses And various sizes along with This residential component Is choosing to locate this as a regional center Staff is fine with that designation They've calling this medium density Non-residential slash mixed use But there's a little bit of a Caveat to that They're showing essentially Medium density Commercial development here The residential component however Is essentially Seven story buildings So essentially that is sort of within a higher Density perspective Both of which are recommended for a regional center But essentially the shift from taking An entire area that was Intended to be residential And moving all of that density Into one location at the bottom of the map Is going to have some implications For how the site functions How it was envisioned sort of within the UGMP And so that'll be sort of some of the discussion Point moving forward Are how are shifts from the road network Are going to affect how the site functions On this site Bringing us to sort of the UGMP perspective The commercial Or this bluish color here Is flex space So that includes parcels that are outside of this request But also there is the commercial piece here Otherwise the plan really called for this To be primarily residential Now ultimately the master plan Gives the applicants a lot of flexibility As long as they meet that underlying density Those residential units Those kind of the core components of the plan Then there's additional flexibility to do things Like commercial The applicant has essentially taken this portion here And converted it to commercial There may be some residential units Above those if I'm recalling correctly But the bulk of that density Has been located down here Into these really tall apartment buildings That aren't necessarily Connected or contiguous with Some of the areas that they've identified That are going to be providing some of the parking So part of the conversation Even though there is no required parking For the zone change later this afternoon Is how is this residential Which was really supposed to be the focus for this area With it being shifted to the rear With it sort of being limitedly parked How is that really Working with the rest of the system As noted earlier we'll also have some questions About connectivity The roadway and grid system And how that kind of works and functions with the design Once again some of the problems with access Not using sort of the roadway and street network That gets laid out We wanted to within this plan across all of the areas Where feasible have those grids Where you can have those connections And especially sort of integrate The residential So the function of that residential How that's actually going to work on this site And the shift from being primarily residential To commercial forward With sort of residential to the rear Is what we'll be talking about at the zoning committee Later on this afternoon and moving forward But with that Happy to answer any questions On place builder Or the UG&P Place builder questions Thank you Alright Good news and bad news Thank you We're a Okay with the postponement We know we've got a lot to work on This is a speculative Zone change to say the very least The only Kind of Kind of known Entity Is the Lexington Motorsports facility That is basically right back here Which would be relocating from the Miss Lake development That's on Man O'War In Richmond Road and going into this location So So This is Going to again kind of Shine a light on Trying to bring this plan Into basically Approval. It's my understanding Even though we are showing The access points on Athens Boonesboro exactly Where the plan is calling For, it is still going to Require a waiver In land subdivision regulations On access spacing Maybe We need to This maybe might be a Conversation that We're going to have Because we want to Comply exactly with what the plan Is calling for with regards to the Main access points. We also Need to comply with the land subdivision Regulations We believe that those should Be in alignment We also Heard at the TRC that There's a chance that this plan Actually doesn't agree with the Blue Sky master plan As far as the access space That's what Eve had mentioned at the very end I do not Know. I just put this on Everybody's radar. Again similar To what the earlier conversation was This is going to be the type of Stuff that we're going to have to be talking about As these plans Come online. We're good with the Postponement. We are very Good with the access points. We want to Align with them. We also want to make Sure that we're able to develop Property in an efficient manner With as Limited amount of Waivers as kind of possible To not burden this Commission. But Again this is speculative In nature right now. We don't have A number on the hotel Because we're just guessing that A hotel would make sense In this location. We don't have Tenants in this spot This is similar to what the Basler Kind of development was With regards to We're trying to bring commercial To the interstate Interchange because we think that's there And we're also trying to bring the exact Amount of density that The plan calls for. And so We're good with postponement That's just a little preview of Some of the things I think we're going to end up Talking about. Happy to answer Any questions. I was Much shorter this time. Thank you. Any questions? All right. Thank you all. Is there something else? There's not Really. There is a concern about The number of bike parking places that We are showing here We're just showing What is required in the Ordinance The ordinance Calls for way too many Parking places The ordinance doesn't? I think you're talking about the UGMP The ordinance is 10% of whatever parking Spaces you're providing. And then The UGMP requires an additional Bike parking place for every 3,000 square feet of building Square footage. Recommend. So we are showing the recommended Amount of bike parking places. I can assure you that if This zone change is ever able to Get approved and we bring a final Development plan forward, I will be Asking for a waiver to reduce The But you do. You have to follow us. So we don't need 800 bike parking places In Spinsboro To change. So we'll cross that bridge When we get there. With a bicycle. Okay. But the amount of ATV Parking places will probably increase. For Lexington Motor Sports. All right. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Madam Chair. If everybody's ready I'll move for recommendation and postponement Of plan MJDP 26-57 Basler et al. For all the reasons provided by everybody. Second. Most have been made in second for postponement. All in favor? Aye. We're unanimous. We'll take a five-minute break, please. We'll take a five-minute break, please. We'll take a five-minute break, please. We'll take a five-minute break, please. Diolch am wylio'r ffilm. Diolch am wylio'r ffilm. Diolch am wylio'r ffilm. Diolch am wylio'r ffilm. Diolch am wylio'r ffilm. Diolch am wylio'r ffilm. Diolch am wylio'r ffilm. We've got kind of the main entrance into the development here, and this is indicated as a town center. The applicant's showing that, but that's also shown on the UGMP. There's what looks like an entrance here, entrance there, and then this entrance to the east is depicted and proposed as a half boulevard section along the property boundary. So we've got the town center here. There's some residential. There's multifamily residential in this area. As you come down kind of that main roadway into the property, there's single-family. There's multifamily residential. There's also more townhomes. Townhomes are kind of interspersed throughout the development. And then this area along this internal, they have it labeled as a parkland, and that was part of our discussion yesterday when we met with the development team. They're not specifically proposing to dedicate that for a park. That may just be open space to their property. But they are showing some townhomes that front the green space that are accessed by alleys, and that was part of it. We've had quite a bit of discussion over that, and I'll get into that in a little bit. And again, continuing down the eastern property boundary, we have this half of the boulevard section. The applicant did indicate that that would be two lanes and would function as a full roadway until the other part was built, as it's proposed here. And then as we get down, there's a senior cottage development proposed toward the southern end of the development. And again, this is the multifamily coming along that longer drive on the western side. Let's see. Let me go back to you. And then another question and concern that we've had is that this southern tip of the property is not showing any development, and the half boulevard terminates at the floodplain and doesn't connect on through. So that's some discussion that we've had about utilizing that portion on this development plan and then also showing that connection through across the floodplain. And then just kind of for a quick reference, this is the regulating area from the UGMP. It shows that this kind of parallels that half boulevard roadway that they're showing. And on the development plan, it comes down along the property line roughly to about here. But in the UGMP, it shows it deviating into the property to the east. So we've had some questions about the connectivity through down to the village center south of the property, which is also the northern part of this proposed village center in the UGMP is this tip that's not being proposed as having any development on this plan here. Overall in the UGMP, it shows this roadway coming down, and roughly in this area, it goes out into the property to the east. They did submit a revised plan, so you should have a revised staff report in your packet. And they did some cleanup items, and Tony's indicated that he's still working on cleaning up some of those things that are kind of the low-hanging fruit. And then some of the last few items under the requirements not met, we had a discussion with FIRE about the alley access to the townhomes that have no street frontage. So the concern is that we have adequate width in those alleys for FIRE emergency access, deliveries, things like that. And so they're proposing some 90-degree turns. And so the turn radiuses were a concern, and then the width of the alleys themselves. There's not necessarily a concern with the townhomes as long as they have frontage for FIRE access, but the ones that don't have street frontage, there definitely is some concern about making sure that we maintain that for health, safety, and welfare. And then there would be some waivers necessary based on what they're showing. Findings for an access easement is sole access for the townhomes. Frontage requirements for partials that don't front street right of way. And we've had some questions about the cross sections, what's required now with the land sub regs versus what will be required with the complete streets, and the difference between showing what's required now and then on their final development plan, possibly having to show something different. So there's a little bit of a timing issue with how they conform with the regulations, the preliminary versus the final. And presumably they'll have multiple final development plans on this. So by the time this is all built out, our complete streets will presumably be adopted, and the land sub regs will change as well. So I know they have a concern about requesting a waiver and then having to undo something or change something going forward based on the change in the regulations. So there's some timing questions about that. Waiver for block length greater than 1,000 feet. So this road in particular is unbroken for quite a bit in the middle, so they would need a waiver for the block length and then connectivity to the adjoining parcels. They do show a connection to the west here to step into that property. But then we do, again, have questions about connecting through to the south and how that will function as well. And then we did get into some discussion about the privilege fees and that as well in our meeting with the development team yesterday. So that's been a question with the development in particular of that boulevard as well. And then under plan questions and concerns, again, the inclusion of roundabouts for the intersections on boulevards. And then we have the question how roundabouts would work on this half section along the property boundary if they do propose roundabouts to conform. There would be some practical difficulties in constructing those and making them work going forward. And then the parkland, as it's labeled, for it to meet the criteria for a park, there's some changes that would need to be made, but it seems like their intent is not to dedicate it as a park and the applicant can speak more to that. So those questions may kind of go away with the discussions that we've been having about the parkland. Number two and three under plan questions and concerns. And then I mentioned the proposed half road construction of the boulevard along the eastern property boundary, the access spacing on Todd's Road with the entrances. And then for all three of these, discussing the proposed road types as they're consistent or not with the UGMP. And then we had a question about will any of this development be subdivided for sale? And then questions about sanitary sewer, how it will be accessed for the proposed development. And then I don't think I mentioned this on the previous two, but there's some questions about sanitary sewer capacity. And particularly with the previous two plans, there's limited capacity. And so at Tech, it was recommended that they go ahead and get their applications in for those. And similar for this, because of the size of development and everything, the capacity is something that's a concern. And then questions about stormwater management, discuss the CLOMR requirement. If fill is placed in the floodplain and there is floodplain, this is an existing pond. And the floodplain currently goes back just to the rear of the pond and then comes out off the property there. So there's some floodplain on the property. And then under the place builder criteria in UGMP, again, roundabouts are the standard intersections for avenues as recommended by the UGMP. Discuss the timing concurrency of construction of single family detached parcels. There should be a bike lane on the section JJ that will connect to Cane Break Drive to the south. The block perimeter greater than 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, depending on the intensity of the particular area is a question. This also deviates some from the roadway network shown in the regulating area, the regulating plan for Area 4. And kind of the main deviation, again, is where they're proposing this boulevard to come down along the property boundary as opposed to swing out. And there's just some other differences with what's recommended or shown. And then some question about stepping into the adjacent properties, loading and unloading areas, compliance with the active depth recommendations of the UGMP. Again, with the intersection improvements. And then this one as well, no more than one non-alley curb cut per block face. And then to denote the bicycle parking and correct the parking statistics. They need to show the street trees on the cross sections and the site statistics. And then block perimeter requirement conformance. And then to show shared driveways and inter-parcel access between all the areas. And then it doesn't seem to meet the residential density requirements. I think Daniel can probably talk a little bit more about that. It does not depict the village center uses as shown in regulating plan Area 4. And again, that village center is, the center of it is south of the property, but it does extend on to the property. And then the main portion of the property, the subject property is a town center. Let's see. And then denote concurrency requirements for residential buildings within quarter mile of a town center and village center. Denote no more than 80,000 square feet of commercial floor area shall be issued a certificate of occupancy until at least 50% of proposed number of dwelling units have been issued a certificate of occupancy. And then vehicular access is only allowed from alleys and village and town centers. And then it does not meet the minimum ADU requirements for single family lots. Again, I think Daniel can probably explain that a little bit better than I can. But there is a minimum requirement for certain percentage of the single family dwellings to have ADUs. And then we are recommending postponement at this time. Mainly questions regarding compliance with the UGMP and land subregs and the zoning ordinance. And with that, I'll open it up to you all and be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? All right. I saw something question the number of entrances on Todd's Road. Is there one or two? Multiple. It looks like there's a parking lot entrance here, a street entrance here, commercial there, street. Okay. And then another street. So there's quite a few. Okay. And secondly, you said something about on the south side, down towards the end, a separate town center area. And is that off this proposed property? So this is our subject property. The center of the village center is shown down here, and it extends up into this southern tip. It does. Okay. And they're not proposing anything right now. This pink line is our property boundary. So then this is our subject property here. So the pink color is the northern extent of that. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. We'll hear about waivers or place building. Okay. Okay. Yeah, we think they'll need waivers. They have not made applications for any. Yeah. Daniel Crum, planning staff. Once again, this is the urban growth master plan development. So we've got place builder, and we've also got the requirements there. From the public engagement side, the applicant's information indicated that they planned on hosting a meeting. They can provide more information about their timelines for that. From the normal place builder side of things, they are once again situating this as a new complete neighborhood, and they're showing a lot of residential development associated with that. They're saying they're a mix of single family, single family attached, eight plexes, you know, standard multifamily units overall are kind of acting in a medium density capacity. Staff agrees with that. So from the normal place builder side of things, their framework is in agreement. From the urban growth master plan, once again, This is doing a lot of what the plan calls for, mixing housing, various densities, incorporating commercial, connecting those with a grid-like system. Some of the specifics are still being worked out as far as alleys and access. Where they're running into issues on this plan is by not showing the development that's associated down here with the village center, as well as some shifts they've made with the town center up here, is they are below the recommended number of dwelling units for this particular area. So once again, showing development and connections as required by the plan and then addressing those elements would bring them closer into compliance. But once again, it's doing a lot of the things that we call for within the urban growth master plan. But ultimately, the connectivity as far as bringing the piece down, the relocation of the streets and the residential densities are really the main talking points that we'll have moving forward from the zoning side on this particular site. Also, it did get brought up earlier about the floodplain. A portion of it is mapped as it extends out, but it has a kind of a conspicuous flat line here, similar to how we've addressed other developments that appear to have areas of unmapped floodplain. We'll ask the developer to show us where those areas, based on the topography and elevation, how far they extend and what those impacts are. And that's all staff has at the moment. Place builder questions? Thank you. We'll have the applicant. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy representing Anderson Communities. Let's see. I've got to get the name of her firm right because it's been changing. Tunnel Spangler Walsh, TSW, is handing out an exhibit to you. Tony Barrett is our landscape architect, and also we have Maeve Sirick here from TSW as well. We're real proud of the plan we've presented to you. We think we have a plan, I think, as Mr. Crum mentioned, that is in overall agreement with the overall themes and goals of the expansionary master plan, or excuse me, the urban growth master plan. I keep getting that terminology incorrect. We have the boulevard. We have the mix of housing. We have townhomes interspersed with our single family. We have green space that is likely to be a homeowners association green space rather than a park green space. And Dennis Anderson's goal for this is to build a complete community like he has in Townley and like he has in Great Acres. So this is going to be continuing his pattern of trying to build complete communities where people have entertainment, recreation, employment options as well as living options. We're in a little conundrum about the waivers. We had a very good meeting yesterday with the staff. I pointed out that I think we have a number of features in here, which Samantha will discuss in just a minute, where we are meeting the recommendations of the urban growth master plan, but our regulations have not kept up. So I'll give you an example is where we have our townhomes facing our green space. That is the front of the townhomes. There's a picture in the urban growth master plan depicting this, and that's what we're doing here. But we don't have street frontage because they're being served by alleys. So I'm going to have to ask you for a waiver on street frontage to comply with the plan on that. Sort of ironic. We have to get a waiver for us to comply and do what your plan recommends us to do. But that's the way the situation is. There's a few other instances like that we're going to be going over. I was trying to avoid the situation where we're asking for waivers, and then the regulations get changed, and we don't need the waivers anymore, and we may have to redesign to meet the plan that we originally wanted to meet here. But we're working through those issues with the staff. As I said, we had a long, good meeting on those, and we'll continue to work on those issues. Anyway, I wanted Samantha to give you a little introduction to our plan because this is the entire property that Dennis has under contract. It's about 123 acres, so we're showing everything there. We're showing our road patterns and everything like that, and we wanted to give you a little background on the plan. So I'm going to turn it over to Samantha. Good morning, everybody. Well, this has been a unique experience this morning to get to hear the original regulating plans that I created through the UGMP, to get to hear them critiqued and then brought back in. And so I think what we're really trying to do on this property is meet the UGMP standards that we set out. And I think that really what you all will see, and I gave you all the color version just because I think it helps explain it a little bit better than the one that is up here, just so we have it, that's up here. It's also quite a large site, so it's a little bit hard to see when it's like this. But really what we're trying to meet is providing that variety of housing. We are over 1,200 dwelling units, which is a huge number that is being asked for in these urban growth areas, and it's everything. We're showing this variety of housing types. That's everything from small lots, single family, townhomes, sixplexes, flats over top of garages, senior cottages, multifamily, and they're all sort of interspersed in a more organic manner than I think we've kind of seen from past developments. So it is supposed to feel very much like a walkable community. This is all designed around this existing pond feature that you all could see, and we're very much leveraging that as the main central open space amenity. It will also be our stormwater feature, but really it's supposed to be there to serve as that central open space. One thing that Dennis really wanted to push was that the most people possible had visual access and access onto this pond and that it didn't feel like it was just somebody's private backyard. So that is very much, you know, it looks like a very long list of questions and, you know, issues, and like Dick said, a lot of that has to do with the fact that we based our plan, just like the UGMP asked, to assume the complete streets design manual has been approved. Obviously we know it's still a few months out, but all of our street sections are based on the sections that are in that complete streets design manual. So while we don't necessarily adhere to what you all are required to look at right now in the zoning ordinance, we, in a few months, we will very much adhere to that. And so that's a little bit of the crux of the point we're in right now, and a lot of that has to do with we're using alleys throughout this project, and we're doing that to make the space more walkable so that we don't have a whole bunch of driveways that are cutting into the sidewalks and so that, you know, it's really about the pedestrians. And so like was said already, I think, you know, where we're coming up with some issues will be, actually it's easier to show you on here, is right up along the pond. We're facing townhouses and single-family homes onto that pond and serving it with a trail system and having them served in the back by alleys. When we met with planning yesterday, we do agree, you know, we will adjust how those alleys are working to alleviate fire concerns of, you know, having to make that turn radius. So Tony will use, you know, the turning radius given for the fire trucks that we have to make sure that we're able to access those. Some other things that I think are important to note, the sort of village center area up top, we have a lot of opportunity there for additional density. As we've kind of seen in Dennis' properties in particular, you know, you have to build the rooftops first and then the commercial follows, and so a lot of that will be market-driven. Right now, you know, we're assuming single-story commercial, but there's the opportunity for additional residential or office above that to really get that density in there. Let's see, in terms of concurrency, we feel like we're meeting that. Regardless of whether the, you know, of what time the town center comes on in terms of phasing, the area shown as the clubhouse and the pool will initially work as that leasing center and the concurrency for the upfront pieces of the residential, but then obviously as the commercial comes online, we're meeting that. It's a huge site, obviously, so this will be very much about phasing and phasing sort of from that top left corner where we're showing apartments all the way down through. One unique challenge that we have, though, is that our stormwater or the pump station will occur at the low point, which is sort of at the low point of where the pond is coming through, so we will have to build into the site pretty much right away. We've tucked the parking to the rear and to the interiors blocks as much as we can. Like I said, we're complying with the Complete Streets Design Manual across the area along the eastern edge, where we talked about how that diverges from what's shown in the original UGMP is because we wanted to ensure that long-term, if the property adjacent never gets developed, you still get that street connection down that meets those street connections all the way down through the rest of Area 4 down to Cane Break Drive. When we met with planning yesterday, we talked about this lower piece here. Our concern was always, since that is part of a town center development, it's showing quite a bit of density. And so we didn't want to stick a bunch of folks down there in very dense mixed-use situations that is sort of like off the end of the page. But I think what we'll end up doing is we'll show it so that we know where that road connects through and what that density looks like, but obviously it would be phased as properties develop to the south. So I think that that's most of what we needed. We will touch on it. We do know that we need to add some roundabouts in here, and those will occur where, for instance, the avenue meets a crossing here. And then we still have to figure out how we're going to work it to build a half-a-roundabout along that eastern boulevard section and how we're going to work that long-term. That will be an interesting test subject for us. We already know that we have too many access points along Todd's Road, so we've already discussed closing some of those, especially to the ones that are just serving the parking lots. We don't need those to access Todd's Road at the moment. And then the question of ADUs, we just didn't show them. We didn't really get into the details of what the single-family housing would look like, but obviously we're all for more opportunities to build additional housing. I'm going to turn it back over to Dick real quick. Anyway, as I said, we were proud of the plan we're presenting to you. I hope you see it will be a really nice community once built, and Dennis specializes in building entire communities. We'll be talking with the staff. I was hoping that we could defer the waiver issue until the final development plan stage because at that point we'll know what waivers we really need from the regulations that are then in effect. I think that I'll be conferring with the staff if we need to go with some of these now. We'll go with some of these now. I know the 1,000-foot block length we may have to have a waiver on. Of course, the block length, one side of that 1,000 feet is a green space, so it's all access into a green space. So it's not like our people don't have access to the green space. It's right across the street from them, and that's the plan of it. We want the green space to come up through the street so it's accessible and visible to all our residents out there. It's not just for people to look out their back door on. But we'll go through those and continue to talk with the staff on that. We've had a lot of discussions with the Clark family next door, Dennis has, to try to work out details on that. We're setting up a neighborhood meeting on this as well. So we appreciate your attention to this, and as I said we're pleased to present this plan to you, and we'll be continuing to work with the staff on it. Thank you. Number one, this is exciting. It is refreshing to see a plan come in that's close to the vision that you guys put together, that there's real correspondence here. I'm thrilled. Just out of curiosity, the senior cottages down at the bottom, are these similar to the cottage developments that Anderson-Thompson has done previously or something new? It probably will be similar. The interesting thing Dennis does is he builds it, he starts it out, and then he gets feedback from the people living there, and he tweaks it as a result of that feedback. So his concept is continuously evolving. So if it were built today, I'd say it would probably be real similar to that. If it's built two years from now, it may be different, based upon the input from his residents there. Are there any questions for the panel? Go ahead. I'm going to ask the same pump station question that I asked on the previous one. Do you know, would that be a private pump station? Would that be something you'd want to dedicate to the city? How are you thinking on that? Well, my understanding is that the pump station, which we're proposing right down this area, is going to be a temporary pump station because the final one is going to have to be on the Clark property down here to serve the whole area. So this will be a – Dennis has had a number of discussions with Charlie Martin on this. This will be a temporary pump station. It will be a city pump station. But we understand that that will have to be probably taken offline when the full one comes on. So it's going to be privately owned until it can be taken over by the next? No, I think it will be city. Engineering will tell us what we have to do, but probably on ownership. I think it will be a city pump station. We'll build it. To be honest, I just emailed Water Quality to ask for their draft proposal for the urban growth areas because I know they're working on the plan, but I don't have a copy of that. I think it's important to note that this one is being fed off of Todd's Road, so it's not that same question of limited access for the pump station that's serving the two previous properties and Blue Sky. So we're not sort of asking that same question. Well, that's going to depend on what happens across the road as far as a lot's going to determine what's going to happen on the Clark property, right? Right. We're cognizant of that, and that's why this will be a temporary pump station because that's not going to be able to serve all the Clark property because it continues to slope down to the east there on that, and the permanent one will be, as I understand it, on the Clark property. But you still have to have capacity assurance. Oh, yeah, absolutely, yeah. Yeah, I think the boulevard, the half section, it will be interesting how to solve that, but I'm sure I see some of the elements, so I just appreciate the serious attempt at complying with the ideas in the urban area master plan. Well, as this was worked out, as we went in early on the comp plan, it was agreed that the road would come down through the middle, and that's because neither party would be in a forced marriage with the other one about using this because the one that goes first could build the half side, which would function as a full public street until the other side of the boulevard is built. I anticipate when we have to have a roundabout, we'll just have to reserve land for the bubble for the roundabout. You don't want to—it's going to be too confusing to have people drive both ways on the circle there, yeah. All right, any other questions for the applicant? All right, thank you. Thank you for the plan. All right, any public comment? All right, we'll bring it back to the committee. We're still recommending postponement. Madam Chair, I move for postponement of PLN-MJDP-2658, German property, for the reasons provided by staff. Second. Motion's made and seconded. All in favor? All right, we're unanimous. We'll postpone. All right, do we have anything else? Page 8. Yeah, as Tracy said, it's on page 8 of the agenda. We've got a couple of waivers. I'll try to make it quick. I'm sure you all are ready to have lunch. So the first waiver is PLN-WAV-2621. It's for the Griffin Gate Center, Clarion Hotel. They're requesting a waiver for 20-3, the open space requirement. We met with the applicant last week, and I think that as a result of that meeting, they're going to make a few changes to the site plan. And so we really don't have a whole lot of other information other than that. We haven't seen that new plan, so we're just waiting until we see that. I don't know if anybody here from the applicant side is here. I don't see anybody immediately. But anyway, that's kind of where we're at with that one, is we're just waiting to hear back from the applicant and see the new development plan. Sorry, I should have given you a little bit of context. It's at the end of Newtown Pike. Sorry, I forget that you haven't seen that. Chris hasn't presented the waiver or the development plan. So what you've got here, Newtown Pike, and then there's the on-ramp to 75 South. So you're at the interchange of Newtown Pike and I-75. They're wanting to do a renovation on the Clarion Hotel, which involves removing some structures or portions of some structures and then doing additions to other parts. So it's kind of a lot of moving pieces. And there are a few questions about some of the parking lot standards as well. So most of the conversation was about bringing the parking lot up to current standards and then just the open space requirement. So sorry to give you the full context there, but that's what we're working with. Is that a new building in the back? So currently this structure is there. It's connected at this portion. So they would be removing the connection and providing a through street or a through access and then adding this parking lot. So currently that is a green space. I got you. If you go along the front of the hotel and you get to the ramp, you get to the end and you're stuck back there and you have to come back through that. Yeah, so their proposal would obviously be to connect it all the way around, which will be positive for everybody else. Just to give you a little better idea of the existing condition. So you can see the connection here, and then they're actually going to connect this portion here. They're going to construct, and they're going to do small additions under the back. And then, like I said, there's going to be additional parking there and then pavement connection there. That's the first hotel on I-75. Yeah, I think the most recent plan we have for it is 1965 or 66. So it's been around a while. Yeah. Juan Gardner did it. No. Yeah. We can move on. I don't know if there's anyone from the applicant side here to speak on this. The next waiver is PLN WAV 2622, and it is also a request for a waiver of 20-3, which is the open space requirement. The applicant, this is Wal-Mart on Nicholasville Road. You've got Nicholasville Road here, and then Man O' War, and then the entrance to the shopping center here. The applicant is wanting to do a 7,600-square-foot addition, and I believe that is for curbside pickup. So it's relatively small. It's 7,600 square feet, but, you know, as far as the size of a Wal-Mart, it's relatively small. So that's the only change that they're proposing. They're not removing any open space. So the open space would remain as it is currently, and I think they've indicated a hardship in meeting that open space is they would have to redesign the entire parking lot to bring it up to current standards. So that is the request from the applicant. So they're taking away my cut through. Well, I think you can still get through there. I think they're just making this addition to the building and then putting in some sidewalks and then reconfiguring the parking in this area. But I think you can still access through here. Otherwise, you've got that horrible four-way stop out there, and that's giving you a way to get around the four-way stop. It's not great. Trust me. But if you all have any questions about this request, I'll answer those at this time. Is that all you've got? That's all I've got for waiters. Let me ask you a question. Yes, sir. On the Parker Tobacco Company on Broadway, where that big burrow tree is, have they ever done anything about getting an access out the back, or are they working on that? I think that's what the postponement is about, is they're negotiating with adjacent property owners to try to gain access to Red Mile. That's what I understand. I don't know if Mr. Murphy is still here or not, but he represents the applicant, so he might be able to give you a little more insight on that. That's all. Okay. That's what I was trying to say. All right. Thank you. Because contrary to Mr. Nicholson's request, I don't think that tree is as hollow. On the postponed items on page nine, I think we have a WML Properties remains on our agenda, and I... Is there a zoom in? Well, that's the open space. This is the previous location of a pizza parlor, and they're wanting to put in a new restaurant here. We've run into some issues with a patio being installed. Do you all remember? Okay. Installed before approval. Yes, yes. So the first step to rectifying that is the development plan getting approved. So one issue was open space, and so the applicant filed for a waiver, and then they submitted additional information in regard to what you see here of how they could meet the open space requirements on site and also keep the proposed patio. So they have withdrawn their waiver, so the waiver's now off the table. But what is still an issue, I'm going to hand you all the minutes of a Board of Adjustment meeting from 2002. So the property was rezoned in 2002, and in about the same two- to three-month window, the owner went to the Board of Adjustment and asked for variances, which are on the front half here of page eight. And then on the back is the discussion that happened and the motion, but also the recommendation, which did get approved. So the recommendation from the staff at that point, again, they had already been to the planning commission for the zone change and had a preliminary development plan. The conditions that the board approved, the first condition is what is kind of holding us up here. The property must be developed according to the submitted site plan, which, of course, is similar to the development plan that the commission saw in 2002, including internal landscaping as depicted on the plan, or as amended in the future by the planning commission. Today, if someone were to go to the board, we might put in a condition about amending the development plan, but we wouldn't mandate it go back to the planning commission specifically. But because that was a condition of approval of the variances, it's the staff's recommendation that this development plan be presented to the planning commission and that the planning commission accept the basically reworking of the site, specifically the parking and the patio in conformity with this condition. And again, I would note the, and we'll show you what the development plan and site plan looked like before. It included parking and interior landscape islands that are now missing. So two are gone completely and one's been reconfigured. So we're going to try to communicate with the applicant about what's the space that was promised in 2002 in terms of these landscape islands, and is this plan still meeting that? And then that will help the planning commission vote on this proposed development plan. I'm not sure it necessarily addresses some of the neighbor's concerns, but in our mind, if it meets the ordinance, we're on safe ground. Is that the ordinance in 2002 or the ordinance now? The ordinance today. So some of the, there's some changes in terms of landscape islands when they're needed, how big they have to be, but also changes about the open space. So open space wasn't necessarily mandated in 2002 where it is required now. So we just want to make sure, and I did tell the applicant's attorney yesterday, they really had two options. They could go with the development plan back to the planning commission and continue to meet that condition or go back to the board of adjustment and ask for the condition to be removed or amended. Either way, I think we're going to be on Lex TV for a few minutes. Just wanted to give an update about that. And I noticed Mr. Schutte moving towards the microphone. Morning, Scott Schutte, Tony Barrett on behalf of the applicant, not to add another wrinkle to what Tracy already said, but under today's ordinance the landscape, internal landscape comes up when you've got 5,000 square feet of vehicular use area. We are below that. So that's where it gets a little bit awkward for us. We think we're complying with the ordinance. We understand the condition from 2002. So we're happy to bring this back in front of the planning commission for what we believe should be a ministerial review of the development plan. I would have loved to have presented this plan to you before the patio was placed. Don't always get that opportunity. So we are where we are, but we think that we've worked through everything appropriately, got all the questions answered related to dumpster access, everything else. And so one other item that was talked about at the TRC is the driveway will be expanded to meet the current ordinance. And we plan on yellow marking, no parking on each side of the entrance to give a little extra room for waste management, which will be serviced privately, but to make sure waste management is comfortable, if that ever reverts back to them, that's why we're doing that. Do you have any questions? Is this a beg forgiveness or ask permission? A little of both. A little of both. A little bit different, not a typical developer, more of a restaurant operators that maybe didn't really understand, but it is under the 2,500 square foot site disturbance permit requirement. So I can buy the, the argument that we weren't entirely sure at the time. All right. Thank you. Thank y'all. We don't need to act on this. Right. Okay. And then the other four items under postponed or continued items are all related to zone changes. And Mr. Murphy had stepped out of the room, but did you have any update on the Dean Lexington that you wanted to share with the committee? If the answer is no, that's okay. But not. Hopefully there'll be resolved. I'm sure. Well, I think, did you postpone till the end of August anyway? Okay. So three, a couple of weeks, you got, you got more time. Okay. And then the rest three and four, both again, postponed five is the one we're going to vote again on. So we won't talk about that today. Okay. All right. Is that everything? All right. We will see you all next Thursday.