This is the meeting of the Lexa Fayette, Urban County Government's Planning Commission. Today we are talking about subdivision items. Before we begin, let's move to item number two on our agenda, the approval of the minutes from March 12th. Those were circulated. Do we have any revisions to the minutes? If not, the floor is open to a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes. I make a motion to approve the minutes from March 12, 2006. Thank you, Commissioner Marley-Davis. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Judy Worth. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote for the approval of minutes. Mr. Chair, President David Walsh. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens needs some technical assistance, please. Mike, are you in the affirmative on that motion? Yes. Okay, yes. Going slightly out of order, we have a memorandum in our packet from Mr. Fairchild for the performance bonds and letters of credit dated May 12, 2026. Do we have any discussion or motion on the performance bonds and letters of credit? Mr. Penn? Sure. Mr. Chair, I move for release of the call of the bonds as presented by staff on May 14th. All righty. And thank you, Mr. Penn. Second from Mr. Wilson. Is there any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we will take that motion to a vote. And Mr. Owens, are you also? Okay. And the affirmative on that too. Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on. Oh, I'm sorry. On the minutes? Okay. But did you vote on the performance bonds? Okay. Okay. No, this is the current motion. You're good. And you voted, Judy. I have you in the affirmative. There's Frank. Okay. All right, before we go to our first item on the subdivision agenda, do we have any postponements or withdrawals? Afternoon, Scott Schutte. Page four, item C, PLN-MJDP 26-30 WML Properties. Two keys application. We're requesting a one-month postponement for that. Okay. We have a request for a one-month postponement, and I'm guessing that would be to June 11th? Correct. Okay. Do we have any comments or questions for the applicant? If not, the floor is open for the motion to, or the request for postponement. Mr. Chair, I move for a one-month postponement appeal in MJDP 2630 WML Properties, as requested by the council for the app. Council for the app, sorry. Okay, thank you, Ms. Worth. Do we have a second to that motion? Mr. Wilson, thank you. Okay, any discussion or questions? If not, we will take that to a vote. Thank you all. All right, Mr. Owens, thank you. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? I have one other item. yes um on page five under commission items item a pln cell 261 briar hill south wireless communication facility uh the attorney for the applicant has sent a letter with uh formally withdrawing that plan okay so that application has been entirely withdrawn correct okay do you do we need action for the planning commission to acknowledge that no okay great all right All right. Chair, make a motion. Do we have to move on? We don't. On the selfie. It would be best if you just acknowledge it with a motion and make it clear for the record. Okay. All right. Yes, please. Mr. Chair, I move that we, with the Planning Commission, approves withdrawal of PLN-CELL-26-0001, Briar Hill, South Wireless Communication Facility. Okay, and this is acknowledging that it's been withdrawn. Do we have a second? Second from Commissioner Barksdale, thank you. Okay, let's put that to a vote if there's no discussion. And before we, okay, Ms. Davis, could you please vote? Before we go any further, could we please just maintain a level of quiet for the Planning Commission? Okay, that carries unanimously. Now, I believe that takes us to our first agenda item on page 2, 4A, PLNMJDP 2610. Sorry. Good afternoon. We're going to go to PLNMJDP 2610 Bryant Road property. property. We have been, we've looked at this for the last couple months. This property is, this is out located out off of Bryant Road. They have a hotel here in the front. We have a cul-de-sac that leads back to what we've been reviewing as the apartment complex. Cheryl, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Could you speak up just a little bit? I'm sorry. It's too high. Okay. Is that better? I'm sorry. It's a little too high. So this This is the, we're reviewing the apartment complex in the rear. Back in March we reviewed it and we had continued discussion on it because of the layout and the number of dwelling units and the trees. So it was continued to April. In April, it was brought to our attention that there was a swimming pool, let's see, located in the back here. I think we have an aerial, there we go. We had a swimming pool located here and then there was grave sites on the property. And so last month it was, once again, it was continued discussion to this month. And after speaking with the media Armstrong at Historic Preservation, we spoke that there was only two grave sites. One was behind the Monkey Joe's up here, and then another one on this piece of property right here, which on the record plat for the property, it says it's a grave site on the property and that this lot cannot be developed, so it needs to stay vacant with the grave site on it. So at this time, I believe the applicant gave us more information as to what they found on the property. If you all have any questions. Do we have any questions for Cheryl at this time? All right. Could you clarify again, Cheryl? Sorry, where are the two grave sites? I couldn't follow the marker. I'm sorry. This is Monkey Joe's. It's way up here in the corner, in the back corner, and then off of this cul-de-sac here that backs up to the property that we're looking at. This slot here is vacant right here. And as I said, per the record plat, we pulled the record plat, and it has a note on the plat that says that this property cannot be developed because of the grave site on the property. So is that both that kind of rectangular site and the one behind it? Well, just the rectangular site is the plat that we looked at. Okay. I think they found this after they started doing work. I see. Thank you. On the property. Okay. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Cheryl at this time? Seeing none. Thank you, Cheryl. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm an attorney with Billings Law Firm. Previously in this case, Mr. Helani has been before you all at the development plan stage, and because of the issues raised at the April hearing, the applicant retained our firm to help assist with this process. Mr. Helani should be passing out. We have copies for all the Planning Commission of a letter from HMB Consultants. Actually, can I get a copy? I need one of them. They'll put one in the record. I printed out all of them black and white. There's one color. It's the original. Ms. Davis, let me come back to your question first before I sort of talk about the report. Specifically, the one on the top of the property here is sort of behind the hotel. that is clearly marked and delineated as a grave site. My understanding is that's the Bryan Family Cemetery that's been there for a long time. It's clearly available. It's clearly marked off. And that's not what I understand Mr. Gribben, who is here in April, was talking about. Although the farm was the same farm property, it was a separate issue. Mr. Gribben lives in the house right here that has the pool that encroaches into the property in question. So in response to the Planning Commission's comments in April, and I've watched that video in its entirety, I contacted Mr. Gribben and asked to meet him on site with our consultant HMB, which we did about a week after the hearing. We went out on a Monday afternoon. We met with him, spent about an hour and a half on the site, and asked him multiple times, can you show us where the alleged graves or cemetery on on the 1800 Bryant Road property? And he said, well, I've never said there's graves on that property. I've said there's graves on my property and that there might be graves on the other property. And I was like, well, that's not what you said at the hearing, sir. I listened to it. So I said, well, show me what you know. Point me literally on the dirt to exactly what you see. So he walked us to the parcel that Ms. Galt was talking about, which is essentially his side yard. And there is a picture in the HMB report that shows an unmarked headstone or unmarked gravestone on that side yard. There are indentions in the ground. And the note on the development plan, sorry, the note on the plat for that, because I pulled it also, clearly denotes several what we believe to be African-American grave sites from the 1800s. You can see indentions in the ground. There's two gravestones that are up that are unmarked, and there's two that are actually flat in the ground that are unmarked. Now, having said that, none of that is on the 1800 Bryant Road property, and we spent extensive time with him pressing him to say, you know, you've got your pool here. You've got your walking stones. you've made your little backyard on this property. From what you said Mr. Bryan told you years ago, you were allowed to sort of put it back here. Where is this place you're talking about? And he was not able to show us any location on 1800 Bryant Road. What he said was, well, Mr. Bryan had told me that his family had one on here years ago. I said, well, can you connect me to Mr. Bryan? Because I want to know what information he told you directly. And he said, well, I can't give you his phone number unless he gives me permission. I've texted him three times to say, can you give me his first name and phone number so that I can contact him, and he's not responded to me at all. So I feel like I've done as much as I can with Mr. Gribben to address his concerns. Separate from that, then we hired an archaeology firm out of Louisville, HMB Consultants. HMB does extensive work for development projects for KYTC and frequently deals with cemetery sites across Kentucky in road projects and other sites. So they've done extensive research. You see the report in front of you. They went back through historical photographs, historical maps. He also did a physical inspection of the property, both the area that's already been disturbed, which is essentially the length of all of this debris and the sewer line that comes across here. Actually, it's more like right here. As well as this, and this picture doesn't do it justice, but this, let's say square, except for in the pool, is really overgrown with honeysuckle, black locust, some wild rows. And I will tell you that you almost can't walk through there. I mean, there's a little bit of a path, but I mean, it's got briars. It's just overgrown. He took a shovel out and did multiple test diggings that he referred to in his report. He did a visual inspection of that entire area. And his conclusion is we have no historical evidence and no visual evidence that there are any grave sites on 1800 Bryant Road, the parts that we're talking about. And so we feel that we have done both good due diligence with respect to Mr. Gribben's comments, as well as got an expert involved. Additionally, my staff did several other items of research, including we talked to Zach Morris at the Historic Preservation and Survey Coordinator for the Kentucky Heritage Council regarding the way we should approach this to make sure that we were going to leave no stunt unturned. He confirmed no record of a cemetery in the Kentucky Heritage Council cultural resources map or other available digital documents. We verified the property is not on the national register. We also conducted a search of mapped burial locations on the Find a Grave database. We reviewed the Discovery Kentucky Archaeology database. We've talked to Jim Seaver, who's the director of cemetery preservation program at the Kentucky Historical Society to obtain access to any records. He says we don't have any records regarding the cemetery on this site. We also reached out to David Pollock at the Kentucky Archaeology Survey, but did not hear back from him. So, at this point, we feel that we have done what I hope the Planning Commission will find a substantial amount of due diligence to make sure that we are adequately addressing the rightful concern about a potential of having grave sites on the property. I think the only item that you all mentioned in April but didn't make a requirement was whether we do. I think you all used the word LIDAR and I talked to staff and they thought maybe you ground penetrating radar or something like that as alternative. And so LIDAR is not really going to help. It would be ground penetrating radar. The area in question here is really about the only area that's not been disturbed from what we can tell. Everything else on the site has been disturbed for years in various functions. We would have to clear that site out to begin with just to get ground penetrating radar in there because it's just so overgrown and bushy. We don't believe we need to do that based on all of the other things we have done at this point. We feel like we've done our due diligence. If we had some inkling of some evidence that ground penetrating radar might show some result other than what we've done, we would certainly do it. This is my belief, and again, I'm the attorney, so I've looked at this because I don't want the applicant to get in legal trouble, is that when Ball Homes developed, I think Ball Homes is the developer of this section here, they did find graves in this location. they did not find any graves where Mr. Gribben's house is or the next house or the next house, or they would have been on the plat. And so there is certainly evidence of a cemetery in the general location of the property we're talking about, but there is no specific evidence or historical markers of any grave sites on the property in question. And if there had been, we believe that at the times Ball Homes would have developed it, it would have shown up in their work and on the plat. And because the property where the, excuse me, allergies, where the actual grave sites that we do know are located is not even, it's near, but it's not even immediately adjacent. It's not 10 feet. It's 60 or 80 feet from the property line. We feel comfortable with our research. Additionally, because Mr. Gribben has put his pool and he has like walking stones and some other stuff he leaves back here. And that's been there. I think he said Mr. Bryant gave him permission to put that there 20 years ago or something like that. Because he's been on that property for the last 20 years, he's either disturbed anything that was there, or he would have found it and he would have known about where it was, right? Because he's the one who's been using that little piece, and he couldn't show us where that is. We don't have any evidence. So the other part of this is, as mentioned in H&B's report, is the statutory protections in place that KRS 72 specifically says that if during construction anybody finds any evidence of a body, which includes skeletal remains, we must immediately stop and follow a certain process for notifying the coroner and law enforcement authorities, regardless of how old are conditioned the body. So it's not like if it's a fresh body. I mean, I'm not trying to be macabre here, but if it's a bone that's 500 years old, we have to stop. So I believe, and staff mentioned this at the April hearing with you too, I believe there's the statutory protection in place that should, during construction, something occur. Our contractor is required by law to immediately cease work and follow the statutory process. I don't think that's likely to happen because of the other steps we've done to ascertain that we don't have any evidence. So with that, I would submit to you, I hope we have done enough to satisfy the questions you all had, which are valid questions. I think it was reasonable with what Mr. Grubin said to postpone this for a month. I feel like in a month we've tried to be as exhaustive as we can to come to you all with information, including the report from the archaeologist that basically says we don't have any evidence. And I'm happy to take any questions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Do we have any questions at this time? Thank you very much. Thank you all. Do you have one from the pile? Wait, I didn't have to order paper. Okay. Okay. Are we still in need of a waiver on this? Okay. I guess that we received that report at the last month because today is a continuation, right, Tracy? Okay. Sure, Judy. Just clarification. Looking at minutes for the last meeting that we received, separate document not just a piece of minutes that dealt with this. There was a note at the end about a motion that Mr. Penn had made that had to do with encroachment of the swimming pool property line issue. Would you address that as well? Yes, Ms. Worth. Thank you for that question because I did forget to mention that. So based upon Mr. Gribben's comments that the owner had given him permission to install that pool years ago it's our legal position that's called a license that's not adverse possession and that a license is revocable at will and so until such time as the property owner says he has to move it off there he's allowed to keep it on there because of that oral license we have uh no no writing that allows him to keep it there he doesn't have a deed of easement but he's also done it with consent from the prior owner of the bryant's which makes that the license so if he wants to do something else he hasn't alleged any other legal claims he did make that comment but it's basically it's he put his thing over the property line the prior owner said he could do it and whenever the whoever the current owner is whether it's this applicant or somebody in the future tells him to move it he'll have to move it uh here's a question for tracy because this is a continuation Did we technically close the hearing last month or is it? You didn't close the hearing. You just continued it so that you didn't have to rehear everything, but anything new you can discuss. And do we hear any public comment in a continuation? If it goes to what has been presented today that you all heard new today. Okay. Do we have any discussion or questions from the Planning Commission? If not, I can open the hearing up for public comment relating to information we heard today. Okay. If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak to this application and the information specifically that we heard today, now is the time to do so. If you would just approach the podium, state your name, and it is the policy of the Planning Commission that everyone gets three minutes and there is no borrowing or lending of time. Go ahead. Hi, good afternoon. Denise and Lowe again. I live on Timber Creek. And I guess it just concerns me because I had the same comment after the track that survey was done. Why are we letting the applicant do the due diligence of finding out this information? Why is it not an unbiased third party? He's hired an attorney and that attorney did that? Well, that seems complete of interest. We need to have somebody from the government check it out and see. Or allow us 30 days to get NAACP. I don't even know where to begin. but I feel like as residents, we need to come back with something and have our opinion, because personally, everything he said, the lawyer said was hearsay. That wouldn't stand up in court, as he well knows. And then to have him do his own evaluation seems, something smells fishy to me. I feel like we need to have non-biased, non-conflict of interest doing these investigations. That's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? Okay, now we will close that part of the hearing. If there's any Planning Commission discussion? Yes, Mr. Wilson. I guess she's got a point, at least from my perspective, and that is that this was done by the applicant. Now, the question I have for the staff is, do you accept that information as being legitimate and what ways would you legitimize it? I mean, this happens all the time. I mean, you're getting information. You have a report, like a several-page report that has been provided to you by a third party. I mean, they were hired by the applicant, but in the course of them doing due diligence, they present reports to you from different entities all the time, And it's then your responsibility to consider those and weigh them as you will in the course of making your decision. But you get information from outside sources that may be retained by various parties on either side in the course of these hearings all the time. So, you know, but it's part of your decision making as to how you want to weigh that. And, Ms. Jones, you're absolutely right. the thing that I look for at the staff because a lot of people can bring a lot of information to the table and we're just getting it at this case and this instance today. The question is, is the company, I have no idea about this company per se. How then does a planning commission member legitimize what information does come? For example, when people come to us and say they need traffic studies and sometimes they do their own, but what we always rely upon is our own people to make sure that that is authentic are if we accept them we normally say uh... is it's okay because it's been given the good housekeeping seal of approval i don't know how to evaluate a lot of the information coming from an applicant not to say that it's bad i think in fact appreciate the work that you are done to do that but i think it is an interesting point if we get information how do we know it's actually good quality information and that's the only thing i would ask not that you agree to disagree but is this a legitimate farm uh... i can speak to a team b i i was a transportation planner with bluegrass and and a team needed provide work for the transportation cabinet on highway projects i've seen similar reports from them in the past I mean, I think as staff, we can look into any firms that present reports. If it's something that looks shady, we would look into it. But as far as I can tell, reading through the report, it's legitimate. Okay. That's all I'm looking for is some sample of approval. I would just offer as well, Ms. Galt met with our Division of Historic Preservation to ask if they had any evidence of cemeteries in this area. And so they went through an exercise, but when there's nothing identified, it's sort of hard to present that evidence, right? So in that meeting or conversation, they did not identify any other cemeteries besides the two that have already been acknowledged in the immediate area. Okay. Thank you. That really confirms what the report said as well. Mr. Penn. Well, we had a similar situation with Spring Valley. And when they started doing their excavation work, then that's when they found graves that dated back to the cholera days. So Mr. Billings has said that if they disturb or if they find any human bones, they'll stop immediately. And with unmarked graves, you know, I guess you could make them clear that off and do the, But there's no evidence that there's any there. And there was no evidence in Spring Valley that there was any there. So we have to, we either go on trust or we go on site preparation. And I trust that they will do what they need to do with the site preparation. And then we'll know for sure. So it's a judgment call. okay sorry mr chair may i ask a question i have a two-part question and both are for for the staff whose responsibility is it to maintain the land that is had been found to be so overgrown that they cannot actually see the land well the the owner of the land is responsible for its upkeep and maintenance. So overgrowth of trees doesn't usually constitute a nuisance, but like tall grass does. Once it's been rezoned out of an agricultural zone, that becomes a code enforcement conversation with property owners. And it seems like it's very, you wouldn't necessarily see it from any road, so it's just kind of been allowed to overgrow. And I guess my other question is, This is somewhat of a maundering, but back in March when we first discussed this, the plan was not approved. And then we had some exercise where we re-engaged with it. And then I, of course, wasn't here for the April meeting. So could you tell me what it is like, why we moved it to April when it had been disapproved by a vote? I'm going to let the staff speak to that because they're the ones that handle that. Well, Mr. Wilson made a motion for reconsideration in 30 days and that the applicant would bring more information to help the commission make a decision. Right, but the gravesite and the pool weren't part of the March discussion. They were not. It was, and I'm not, I didn't refresh myself on the minutes. I'm sorry. No, those came up during the second reconsideration hearing. Okay. Okay. If there's no other discussion, the floor is open for a motion. We will have the development plan and then we have a waiver. Would you like to make a motion, Mr. Wilson? We have to make a motion. The first move for approval of PLNMJDP 26-10 Brian Properties with the seven conditions provided by staff. Okay, thank you, Mr. Wilson. That's a motion to approve the development plan. Does that have a second? Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Any discussion? Are there seven or eight? Yeah, I can't wait to say I saw seven on the back. Oh, I see seven. Okay. Yes. With the seven conditions. Okay. All right. If there's no discussion, we'll take a vote. This is a motion to approve the development plan. But before you vote, I think there was a request related to Mr. Mickler's question last month, and the applicant agreed to that, and I just want to make sure that that remains on the record. This was on the canopy? Yes, the tree canopy requirement. They did agree to meet the 30% tree canopy requirement, and I just wondered if you wanted to make that as a condition as well. Mr. Wilson, are you open to that amendment of your motion to include? So does that make it eight? So it would be condition number eight, because that's not a requirement, but they agreed to it. So contingent on the seven conditions plus a condition eight, that it be denoted that they meet the 30% tree canopy on their site. Okay, then my motion will be revised for the eight conditions. Okay. Okay. And Mr. Nickel, are you okay with that amendment? Mr. Nickel? B. Okay. Okay. All right. If there's no discussion, we'll now take a vote with that clarification. This is on the development plan. Mr. Penn, could I trouble you for your vote? Mr. Penn. Thank you very much. That carries. Now we will address the waiver. Is there a motion on the floor for the waiver? This is for the sidewalk. so that they only will have to construct the sidewalk on the one side of that portion of the street. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I move the approval of PLNWAB 26.3, Brian Properties. This is the waiver request for the sidewalk standards to eliminate sidewalk on the southwest side of the street with the provisions provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. We'll have a second from Commissioner Worth. Thank you very much. Is there any discussion to the waiver? Seeing none, we will put that motion to a vote. Okay, the waiver carries unanimously. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay, next item on the agenda today is item B, PLN, MJDP 2627. Good afternoon. Chris Chaney planning staff will be looking at the MJDP 2627 the Hazen property Montmolin Street subdivision ever Lexington this is located at 121 Prawl Street 118 Montmolin Street and 545 553 and 563 South Limestone this is a final development plan but where the development recently went through a zone change to a form-based B1. That's the reason this is back before you today. The purpose of this plan is to depict a multi-story, mixed-use building utilizing the neighborhood business form-based project provisions of the B1 zone. The plan includes 155 residential dwelling units and non-residential space. And so this is our site. It's a multi-story, multi-family structure with some commercial uses. This is South Broadway here. This is Prawl Street. And this is Montmolin Street. The main change from the preliminary plan, originally they had an entrance off of Montmolin and an entrance here off of Prawl Street into their internal parking. And they have removed the Montmolin entrance and have relocated the Prawl entrance from roughly this area to here. And previously the parking structure did not connect between the levels and now it does. They're showing circulation inside to get from one level to the other with one entrance onto the street level at Prawl Street. That's the main change from what you've seen before. They also provided an updated character and context study, and you should have that in your packet. And that does reflect the floor plan changes and an update to the renderings that were previously included in that report. So they are depicting some retail on the corner of Montmolin and South Broadway on the, I'm sorry, limestone, I'm sorry. i have uh street dyslexia um and then they're also um showing some uh amenities and a leasing space um on that first floor that faces limestone um the other thing we we discussed um the sidewalk in the front along limestone and the overhang with the building um so we provided the cross section they updated the cross section to show that overhang uh for some clarity so we we have that as well. And then I didn't put, we didn't put slides for the entire updated context and character study, but these are the renderings from that. And they, they were updated to show the change in location for the entrance on Prawl Street. And, and basically just updated to reflect any of the changes they've made since that preliminary submittal. And I think that's all we've got as far as slides. So I'm going to go through the staff report. Under the requirements not met, number one, submit an open space exhibit that matched the site statistics box on the development plan. Number two, provide bicycle parking facilities that comply with these zoning ordinance, and I believe they've been working on that with the bike ped coordinator. Number three, commercial driveway entrances shall comply with standard drawing 307-2, and then number four, label the existing retaining wall at the rear of the property. They're not requesting any waivers at this time. And then under design considerations, see the comments provided by the Division of Engineering and Acela. They'll have to update their sewer capacity application prior to the issuance of building permits. And then questions about the proposal for stormwater management. And then reconcile the depicted street cross-section with more recent plats. and discuss the existence of power pole on the sidewalk on mullen street and then under plan questions and concerns discuss the change to dimension of the street tree well on south limestone cross section and we discussed that a little bit at the subdivision committee they're part of their design with the street tree well i think is to dissuade mid-block crossings and to direct people more toward the intersections. So they're proposing this four-foot-wide street tree well that runs along the block. I believe it was medium-sized trees that they're proposing for that. Discuss the increase in lot coverage, building square footage, number of bedrooms, and height of the building. Number three, confirm this location will have trash compactor or dumpster. number four a consolidation plat will be needed to combine the various individual parcels before the building permits are granted and then finally number number five is to discuss discuss the tree boxes planners and proximity to utilities on limestone and then if the plan is approved we have sign offs standards sign offs for engineering traffic engineering landscaping addressing urban Forester, Bikeped, Open Space, Division of Fire, Division of Waste Management, Division of Water Quality, Approval of the CAP requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and then finally to correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met. And with that, I will open it up to you all if you have questions for me. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions at this time on the development plan? Chris, did you refer to us having something in our packets? We don't have anything about this in our package. Oh, I'm sorry. It's not printed. Is it? Okay. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. We do have a copy, but I apologize. That was my fault. We didn't distribute copies. Sure. Where is the open space? There's nothing on the ground? I mean, the planters? Yeah. I believe the green that's indicated on this plan reflects the open space, but the applicant might be able to speak to that a little bit better. They're showing planners that go around the building. They're considering that the green space. Okay. How wide are those planters? I can't see the number. I think on the... Six feet. Four feet wide on the front. Yeah, six feet sounds right. That's kind of what I remember. Rory can probably tell you a little better than I can. Can you pass around the visual that you're referring to so we can see it? Okay. While Chris is doing that, do we have any other questions? Oh, no. The floor is open, Mr. Penn. I'll tell you what, there is two people up here as confused as they possibly could get. I thought we voted on this. We did. Ms. Wade, do you want to give a version of it? You approved a zone change. Well, we had one hearing and you approved it and then it went to the council and they disapproved it. They came back for a new zone change, which reduced it significantly and chose a different zone. So instead of CN, they chose B1 with the form-based project. A form-based project on a preliminary plan is just in support of their zone change. They still need a final development plan. And because every form-based project requires planning commission permission or approval, every time we have an amendment to one of those same is true for adaptive reuse the planning commission is granting basically waivers to the height requirements the yard requirements for this particular b1 because you're seeing this is the form they're going to build right they're going to build this many units yes but this brick this windows this this is how it's going to look and that fits in with the character and context of the area. So even though it's a final development plan and we're only usually reviewing those with waivers, the ordinance is set up so that this is in essence a waiver. That would have been very nice if we'd let off with that. I apologize for that. Thank you. All right. Ms. Worth? No? Okay. All right, do we have any other questions for Chris while the renderings are moving their way down? Seeing none. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Kaley. Good afternoon. Rory Kaley with EA Partners here on behalf of Subtext. We agree with staff's conditions and recommendations. And now I'll try to answer questions. The open space, I was passing around, so there's the usable open space is the large area in the center of this. The building's a donut shape, and they have amenity space in the middle, so that is where the usable open space is meant. The common open space is because of our proximity to the park, about 700 feet west of here. The vegetative open space is being met by the areas around the exterior of the building, plus there will be green planters associated with that interior space inside the donut hole. And all of those, the documents have been submitted, and I'm just working with Eve on getting all the nuances of how we get them labeled and get them approved. Okay, thank you, Rory. do we have any other questions on the development plan okay all right okay if we have no other questions for mr kayley at this time thank you very much okay do we have any discussion from the planning commission or the floor is open for a motion Just one question, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind. Tracy, could you go back and restate that again, what has happened with this? Sure. So we had a failed zone change to a different zone. So the applicant reassessed what property they thought they could get rezoned through the process. A portion of the property was already B1 where we currently have some commercial structures along that frontage. So they rezoned less than what we're seeing on this development plan, although all of it was on the development plan. So it's right at one acre, I think. And that happened a few months ago. Maybe went through in February? Does that sound right? I'm looking at Nick. Since then, they made some small changes. They, I think, increased the height a few feet. and then what Chris mentioned about the access changes. But the only way to get this size of a building with this intensity of use in our neighborhood business zone is through a special provision in the zoning ordinance, and that's called a form-based neighborhood business project. All of those projects need planning commission approval because, in essence, you are granting waivers to the height yard requirements for this location, because they are committing to these particular renderings with materials and window and entrance doors and all those things that you normally don't get to opine about. Would it also be possible to learn why council did not approve the zone change or why they rejected the Planning Commission's recommendation for a zone change? That might be a discussion item for another day. Thank you. Tracy, I think I got it the second time around. Then explain it to me. Well, what is different about this and what I'm having trouble with, but I think I'm all right, is that 443 didn't affect form base. It did not. So there are two types of projects that will continue to come to the Planning Commission, adaptive reuse and form base neighborhood business projects. because the planning commission is granting exceptions to the ordinance but see this one where we all get confused and i'm not speaking i'm just speaking for my two elder people where we get confused is that it's like a waiver but it's not a waiver you know that's we're not professionals you're all professionals over there we just try to keep up with you and when i look back at mr nichols i have a lot of remembrance of this of this thing when it came went to the planning and came back in fact proudtown kind of became my thing but i was totally lost up here okay well we'll do we'll do better trying to give a little bit more history before we jump into the plan to set you up for those of us that have little learning problems and that would be appreciated thank you all right the floor is still open for a motion on the uh since we're on this again i told you this the tea i'm drinking awkward let me smell that Any time we have a difference in the development plan, in this case it's the difference between a waiver and a reform, whatever, does that have to go back to the community to have them review this? It doesn't? No. Okay. So the community is happy. Is that correct? We're still online for that? Okay, good. I believe they've met all their, what they've agreed to. So they have a private agreement with the Neighborhood Association in that area. Okay. Yeah, I guess. Are you sure? No. Okay. All right. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2627, Hazen property on McMullen Street, et cetera, with the attached 12 conditions. Second. Okay. Thank you Ms. Worth. Second for Mr. Forrester. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none we will take a vote. All right that carries unanimously. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is on page five under waivers PLN WAV 2613. Make sure we're on the right one here. Excuse me. So this waiver, WAV-2613, it's for the Turner Property and Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, otherwise known as Turner Commons. This is associated with final record plat, which was approved at Tech with the, or no, yeah, approved at Tech with the condition that the waiver is approved. May have been postponed. I apologize. So the waiver is for alternate street cross sections. So I'm going to go back and just kind of re-familiarize you with the site. it's a long thin parcel so this is west main and the site continues away and then this is the the second half to the northeast from from this point is shown below so it's kind of broken up on the plan but it's a long skinny lot i don't know if it's a little more clear in the the vicinity map the shape of the property. So they have access on West Main and then this is North Forbes and Commons Way comes in off of North Forbes and connects to Turner Commons Way here. The waiver request is for the private streets within the development, which includes Turner Commons way and Commons Lane so there are four cross sections shown at the bottom here they're on the plan there's one here one here one there and I think the others aren't me that that might be the part oh yes there's two my apologies there's a cross-section there and a cross-section there on Turner Commons So there's three on Turner Commons Way and one on Commons Lane. So for all their internal private streets, they're asking for a waiver for an alternate cross-section from an industrial local. So this is our cross-section for an industrial local or residential collector. It's a 64-foot right-of-way with two 20-foot drive lanes, two 5.5-foot utility strips. and two six-foot sidewalks that's the standard that they would that would be most appropriate as you can see the proposed cross sections are 35 feet and width 54 feet 46 and 35 so they don't quite meet the the right-of-way width and then the dimensions within vary and don't quite meet the widths for the drive lanes and the utility strips. So they're requesting a waiver of Exhibit 6-3 of the land subdivision regulations, which that's this top drawing here, to allow alternate street cross sections. As this development's intended for entertainment destinations and walkability, the narrower drive lanes will encourage reduced vehicular speeds and reduced pedestrian crossing distances so a lot of the development is for recreational uses and so presumably there'll be people for events and and activities that'll be a lot of pedestrian activity and and the narrower cross sections actually do promote more safety from a walkability standpoint and encourage slower speeds where there's more conflict so they've the applicant stated under article 1-5 a exceptional hardship that utilizing a typical industrial local cross-section would result in the private street to be over designed while we don't agree that building to a standard cross section would result in an over designed street we do agree that that the waiver is appropriate in that it will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. And then they say to state under Article 1-5B, Design Innovation, Large-Scale Development, that the applicant cites that the street layouts and cross-sections have been previously approved, and they have been shown on previous plans that have been approved up to this point. And then under the Article 1-5C, Infill and Redevelopment, The applicant argues that due to the unique shape and location of the site, there are limitations and challenges to designing the project, and the proposed cross-sections are appropriate for the use and meet the basic objectives of the land subdivision regulations. As you can tell from the site layout, it is a long, skinny parcel with the street on one side. So then upon review of the information, staff finds that the granting waiver will have negligible effects on public health, safety, and welfare as the proposed cross-sections do not significantly deviate from Exhibit 6-3, and therefore staff supports granting the waiver for alternate cross-sections in this instance. we request approval for the requested waiver for the following reasons number one granting the waiver will not adversely affect public health safety and welfare as the proposed cross sections do not meet the standards but provide adequate space for vehicles and pedestrians within a mixed use environment with limited industrial traffic and number two the cross sections indicated were shown on previously previously approved final development plan for the subject property and within an infill and redevelopment context. And with that, I'll gladly answer any questions you have. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for Chris at this time? All right. Thank you. Mr. Billings. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, again, my name is Nathan Billings. I'm with Billings Law Firm, and it's my pleasure to continue to represent the applicant Turner of Property 4 on this project. We've been before you a number of times on this and a couple of just additional background information for this project. We've got some more things we're sure going to come to you on. But this is actually a unique zone. This is called a PUD 3. And our development plan has been before you I think at least three times. We've done some other little minor stuff. But the cross sections we're asking for the waiver on have actually been on the plan since day one for the main road, which is Turner Commons way off of Main Street. You may recall during the project we also added a new road that connects the Forbes Road project through the site to connect. That's called Turner Commons Lane. So the cross sections you see today aren't new. It's just because we're going to final record plat we now have to get the waiver for the final record plat. And so the record plat will go back to the TRC at the end of the month on our infrastructure issue. We've already built the infrastructure. Now we're at the approval stage of that. So the roads The roads, except for an area on the entrance right about here, are not only built out, but they've actually got the final code on them as well. We went ahead and put that on about three weeks ago, I think. I don't know if you've been down there, but the development is hopping. The real reason, let me correct one thing too. I think Mr. Cheney indicated that we're asking for a waiver for private streets. That was actually granted, I believe, at the original development plan. So the waiver is not for private streets. That's already been granted. It's a waiver for the cross-section on the private streets. So it's a technical twist, but it's important to note a difference there. We agree with staff's report. If you haven't been down there, it's got a lot of construction activity. There is a trail, if you recall, that instead of sidewalks on both sides of the road, one of our requirements was the trail, so the trail sort of connects through, runs on the other side here, so there's plenty of pedestrian walkway. We're excited. I don't know if you all have seen, but you know the rail is this lot right here, which is really why we have to have this final record plat because of the investment group in that and the funding of it. We have to have a separate lot in order to file the condominium documents. We can't just file it on the whole plat or the whole property. But we've also announced, I don't know if it's been announced yet, but right across the way in this piece, we have to subdivide this because we have a tenant. It's a really exciting restaurant. You all know in town is moving down there in September. So we've got some exciting stuff. We'll be back to you all probably later this year. So it's not, it's preliminary, but on the property here that Stantec currently leases, Mr. Turner bought that last year and we're going to integrate that in. We need to wait for that leased end. It's course at the end of this year before we come back and that will be the final piece on the development plan. But I'm glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any commissioner comment or questions? If not, the floor is open for a motion. And this is on the waiver. Yeah, Mr. Mickler. I move to approve PLN WAV 26-00013 Turner Property and Minnithorpe Community Business Center for the waiver with the alternative street cross section for the reasons provided by staff. Second. Thank you. And that has a second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we will take that to a vote. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Nathan. All right. Being at the end of the agenda, do we have any commissioner items to be discussed today? Seeing none, Mr. Duncan. I'm sorry. So Mr. Penn last week or the week before requested that we form a work group of the planning commission to collect findings regarding the requested text that is coming to the Planning Commission from the Council, namely just to hear expert opinions or evidence on what it is we'll be looking at. That work group will be meeting on Wednesday, May 20th at 11 a.m. in the Phoenix Building third floor conference room, and it is an open public meeting. Is there anything you'd like to add to that, Jim? Mr. Chair, the council is scheduled to give second reading to the initiation of that ordinance tonight, so it'll be official for you tomorrow, and then you all can certainly take it up as your work group next Wednesday. Mr. Penn. Could you get us copies of that prior to our meeting Wednesday that we could review before we go into our Wednesday meeting? You ask for what, Mr. Penn, before? So when the council gives us the second reading before our meeting next Wednesday, could we have a copy of that? Yes, absolutely. In time to read it. Yes. Okay. Do we have anything else from the commission or staff? Yeah, these two documents. We have documents from EA Partners in our packet. Those are informational. Okay. All right. Okay. Well, thank you all very much. If we have nothing else today, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.