Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

of the Danville-Boyle County Planning and Zoning Commission to order and I will ask if anyone would like to give our invocation this morning. Thank you, Darren.

Amen.

Amen. Thank you, Darren. So we are ready then to approve the minutes of June 24th.

I have one correction. It says that I made an amendment for lighting on, I wish this is, but I didn't make an amendment.

What page is it on there?

Page three or four. Lower path.

I thought I remember an amendment about downlighting.

Yeah, I know, but I didn't make that.

Okay. Does anybody remember who made that amendment? I remember discussing downlighting and then the applicant. I think I did. Okay.

It was Dan.

Yeah.

Yeah, Dan.

So Dan made that amendment. Thank you. Any other corrections? Sorry, sorry. motion to approve with the corrections and second all those in favor those will be approved as they have been distributed and we'll go on to the financial report.

This is where I missed Terry this morning. I know. We actually saw him this morning and I thought he was going to come in here. So this month there's nothing really to note, Major. We've got the first quarter contributions from the city and we are waiting for the first quarter contributions from the county. I'm still in discussions with them about that initial increase in the ask. They approved the increase for the GIS analyst, but we are still waiting to discuss that 25,000 increase. Yeah, so we are waiting to get that approved with them, and then we will get that contribution, but nothing else to note this month.

Any questions in regards to the financial report or concerns?

Make a motion we accept it.

Thank you.

I'll do the second.

Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Okay.

Can I ask for bigger print?

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Yes.

Thank you.

We'll do that on 11 by 17.

We can get you eyeglasses. Yeah. Two pages, bigger print.

Okay, gotcha. We'll do.

Okay, the construction sureties.

All right, the only thing on the list today is to officially release Jody Sharp Construction Hunt Farm Section 7 in full. The bond was reduced in December of 2025 down to $89,326.25, and two months ago it was completed, and so we are ready to release that.

Okay, so we'll need a motion to do that.

So moved.

Who said that?

It's been inspected.

Thank you. Volker, I've been in contact with Volker. We've got a report from them. So we are happy with the finished product.

So I had a motion. Did I get a second?

Second.

Thank you. All those in favor of that? Thank you. So that is approved. And no other business in regards to the construction sureties?

No other business. No other business on the ledgers of credit. And the performance bond, we are working with the city to get that released in full with Danville Host Center Estates over there by Asuka. So we're hoping to have that released and or updated next month. That development is coming along nicely.

So nothing else in regards to that matter? Okay. Then we'll move along to subdivision approvals. This is not a matter of public hearing. We'll start with Hannah. You want to describe about the subdivision?

Yes. Okay. So Dan Mann has applied for the subdivision of a 23.796 acre parcel of land known as 4156 Perryville Road, Danville. The property is currently zoned agriculture. And... I've also attached in the Google Drive the tech review minutes so you can see kind of the comments about that in tech review, but there were no staff concerns during tech review about this property. You can see there are current structures on tract C1. Sorry, I don't have it in front of me. C1 and C2 have those barns on them. In tech review, we discussed if it encroaches on the setback lines, but there were no concerns in tech review about this plot.

So both barns have access to septic system?

The septic system is only on... The one that has the house and garage? The one that has the barn, I believe, on track C1 is where the septic system is located. Okay.

Thank you. Although this isn't public hearing, does anyone related to the owner or the contractor or architect want to speak in regards to this? Have anything you'd like to share with us?

I'm Kendall Wise from Vantage Engineering, and I just want to offer any clarification if it's needed. I think you have a copy of the plat in front of you, but... It's somewhat confusing just because of the tightness and the closeness of the property lines, and we put that sort of detail on the left side of the page to try and scale up the drawing so that you can actually make sense of what's going on.

Any questions or comments?

There were no issues at check review.

No, there were not. After you studied the details, you did a great job of walking us through those. I'd like to make a motion we approve.

Okay, can I get a second? Second. Okay. Further discussion? If not, all those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, that'll be approved then. Now I'd like a motion to go into public hearing.

So moved.

Leon, second. So all those in favor of public hearing? Okay, we will go forward. And the first item is Danville Host. And Hannah, will you talk with us about this? Sure.

Danville Host LLC has applied for a site development plan for a 3.989 acre parcel. of land located off the non-existent Samuel and Donna Streets future connecting roads existing to Shannon Way, which is the Danville Center estate host. The plan is titled Center Estate Carriage Homes Phase 1 and calls for 30 units and a private street. The property is currently zoned RM3 multifamily. And again, you have this plat in front of you, and as well, you have the tech review minutes. In tech review, we talked a lot about whether this development meets the RM3 definition, but we really did not get into the technical details too, too much because we were trying to understand if this is single family, if this is townhome, how to classify this. So we've really worked with Henry on that definition more than anything. So I'm kind of gonna let Henry take the lead on this one.

There, and I might defer to Council Mr. Cato on this, but There's not much to suggest what constitutes a condominium, and that term has been used kind of broadly in Boyle County, sometimes for commercial developments. The hitch on using it residentially, especially in this zone, is that there have to be three to eight units per building. So the question before you is, do these little groupings constitute buildings? Because they are set in eight unit connections. And I think the argument from Center of States is that there's nothing that says otherwise, and I find that to be a compelling argument if the Commission does.

I've got a question. Are these going to be rental units, or are they to be sold individually?

I think that's going to be a question for the applicant.

Did we have a similar discussion in Junction where it was applied for as condominiums, but there was nothing connecting them? Yes. Yes.

That has been there before. The other thing that brings out on the picture, and I'm sure you were going to bring it out, the little connection between the buildings, go back to the previous page, that's a porch. That's an outside porch connecting. It's just a ceiling that goes across that between the buildings. And I think it was intended to be a concrete slab, but it's not part of the indoor living area. And it's only available to one of the buildings. It's not available to both buildings. So it's not a hallway that goes across. It is just a porch that reaches across there.

And that creates the group. Does it have doorways?

Just on the one building.

On one side, but not on the other?

Not on the other. You can't walk across that to get there.

Mr. Smokes, to answer your question, the properties, each unit will be sold individually. And so you'll have, a person will have an opportunity to buy a home that has a porch that actually connects to the neighbor's home. So there will be a maintenance agreement for that one porch? There will be a neighborhood association, a condominium association set up to maintain all the common areas. I think the applicant And we're going to follow through. This is going to get us started once we understand that you're accepting and willing to approve a development like this. We'll follow up with a, I think we're required by Planning and Zoning to let you review the master deed, the master plat for the condo association. So that would be coming through before anything. building permits are issued. And we actually put a note on this site development plan. It's on the screen there, but it's a condominium note saying, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any dwelling unit shown hereon, the owner shall record in the Boyle County Clerk's Office a condominium master declaration and condominium plat. And, but... So why would we not bring you both? Well, we could, but having your approval of this site development plan will allow us to get started with the site work, the site construction, and that process takes several months.

So to the applicant, what in your mind distinguishes this as a condominium as opposed to small single-family houses?

It's attached housing. Not really. These porches will have to have fire blocking and firewalls. It would be the same as if you put the two buildings together and the wall went from front to back. The wall of the porch, the end of the porch will also have to be fire blocked so that a fire can't spread from one unit to the other. It is joined with a firewall, which is typical of what you would see with most condos that are either stacked vertically or horizontally.

Kendall, what's the... For you, for your guys, what's the benefit of asking for this to be a condo as opposed to just single family homes? I mean, I understand that that's what you want, but I just wanted, for me, what's the benefit of doing that?

That's easy to answer. So in order to do single family homes, you're required to have a certain acreage of land to put your home on. You're required to abide by side yard, front yard setbacks. We could build those homes on a private street, but the street would have to be built to the same standards as the city street would. The main thing is the area of the lot, the width of the lot, the setbacks. We could only do a fraction of the number of homes on this four acres, on this 3.9 acres. We've got some renderings of what this would look like. These type homes have been built. I know homes in Berea and Nicholasville, and there's some in Lexington. We have some renderings of what it would look like, and it does. It looks like you're buying a home, and it's got a side porch on it that just happens to touch the neighbor's home.

I have a question in regards to the location. How much space between the very back of these and that slope that's rather behind there? Because isn't there sort of a slope? There's the hotel or motel that's there and then these are adjacent to that area. Is there a sloping land that's behind that? And how much space is there for any small backyard?

The hillside that you're referring to is not this location.

Okay.

So if you go further to the east, to the other side of where the ponds is located, there are two cul-de-sacs. This development would bridge from one cul-de-sac to the other. It's further on.

It's not adjacent to where the hotel or motel is.

Behind, south of this row of homes is the gas pipeline. And for the most part, it slopes downhill. It doesn't go up.

So there's nothing, you've got the gas line which forces it to a green area?

Yeah. In talking about this development, they were happy to have the gas pipeline there just because it actually provides a nice yard for these people. I mean, nothing can ever happen there. And it will make a nice space for rear yards. Oh, I don't know, Rita. They're going to be nice. I really don't know. I'm not making a joke. Yeah, I think it would be more on the affordable side. I just don't know.

The other item to point out is this is a private street.

I'm sorry, what did you say?

Private street is the way this is being handled. The cul-de-sac at the Each Vine, but this is considered to be a private street, which defines city services and other elements. Certainly. They have, of course, met our parking requirements, which is a key factor for the number of buildings that are three-bedroom and two-bedroom. and added to the ends of the area just to make sure there's enough count. And they've accommodated a dumpster, which is a new, going to be a new requirement for these types of things.

So, but there is not, there are not garages at all in there? No, no, no. They're street. No. Just parking in front?

Yes, ma'am. And in my mind, I mean, that's consistent with the idea of calling it a condo. You're buying... property, but then you have a general maintenance for the entire development.

Right, and that was during the tech review, a lot of the, all these conversations have gone through, and we've had that same question is, it's our standards not fairly strong and clean, and that's what the director asked our legal person to take a look at, how we can get that wording cleaned up. It's a really nice, tight package, provides for those that don't want much of a house. And there's a lot of people out there who would like to have something that's small. I like the idea of having a covered porch outside, which is a convenient personal space.

KENDALL, I get it. The street, you just said it wouldn't require you to build it to the state standards. Would you be willing to do that, build it to state standards? City street standards?

Yes, sir. It actually is 24 feet wide. The difference between this street and a street that Josh Morgan would approve, who's the city engineer, this street has a, it has curb and gutter on one side, so it has a slope from the high side of the property to, it slopes in one direction, whereas the city street would be crowned. and have curb and gutter on both sides. But we didn't see a need for that. And so that would be the difference between this street and a city street. So it's just as wide as the city street. It just isn't crowned with curb and gutter on both sides. Depth? The depth and substrate?

Would you be willing to... to have a condition in there that it's done to...

In the construction plans, the pavement thicknesses and the dense grade are the same as what a city street would be. I've done a set of detailed construction plans because, you know...

I'm just thinking about this. I'm thinking about Shelby Green where they weren't done to that level and then the city ended up having to take it over or they won't take it over and then the people there...

Okay.

You remember that whole issue? Can we try to avoid that here? That's what I'm trying to get to.

My plan is for the pavement to match the City Street pavement because we're going to have dumpster trucks coming through there. We've got the two dumpsters at the end of the drive now. I can't see how the developer of this would be... at all interested in saving on pavement just to have to repair it a year after he puts it in. Because the dumpster truck will show any weakness if it's there.

Yeah, I know. What we're trying to avoid is 10 years down the road, having it look like the streets in Shelby Green look, and then the city saying, it's not my sticky booger. And then whether the developer's still here or not, if the road's not, what I don't wanna do is vote for something that's gonna force the city into accepting to fix a problem later on down the road.

Okay.

Well, or for the road not to be able to handle I'm less worried about dumpster trucks than I would be emergency vehicles or construction vehicles during the construction phase and the build-out.

There's more weight there. Isn't the only difference you've got curbs on one side and not on the other?

Yeah.

So is that significant? I don't know.

But I think Tom's asking me to commit the developer to using it.

I just heard Kendall say streets to not the city standard. And so that's why I asked the question.

No, fair. But I think he's telling us that he's going to do it. The depth and compensation of the road will be the city standard. Is that not correct?

What I'd like to do is have that stipulated.

Very good.

Does that make sense? So that it's stipulated what is not to the city standard. Because the city won't accept the road, right?

Right.

Yeah.

And I think this might require, it might require that conditional approval. I'm looking at the sub regs, which say that permitted private streets shall conform to standards established for public street sections. So I think it's the sub regs demand what Commissioner Ruby is asking for.

I'm not trying to be a jack wagon to Kendall. What I'm trying to do is protect the city.

Yeah, yeah. Okay, one at a time. Henry, does that apply to even something that's called a private street?

I mean, this is saying permitted... Yeah, the wording is permitted private streets shall conform to standards established for public street sections in these regulations.

All right. So it's already... So the... Mr. Ruby's concern is already in the regs. Yes, correct. So I suppose the question here would be, if it's already in there, do we need to do anything with it? We may not. If we did anything, maybe it would be a bond to ensure that it is done that way, or something along those lines.

Where Kendall is talking about curb and gutter or some departures from the standards in the regs, I think we need to address that in the motion, maybe in the form of a waiver.

Yes, that's what I was going to say, because it is downhill. the way he's intending to build it.

And Commissioner Collier, you're saying that justifies the waiver, the fact that it's downhill?

Well, no, we don't have that in our regulations. We would have to agree to that condition.

Exemption, not condition, exemption.

Exemption's right, yes.

Reception. Well, I will say that Josh Morgan was part of Tech Review, and Josh Morgan has been given the full set of detailed site construction plans. and he's our city engineer who reviews the streets and stormwater. I haven't gotten any negative feedback from him or any concern or any questions about what we're proposing. So if that's enough to make you understand that it's been reviewed and vetted and is acceptable with the city, then I think it would be easy for me to say that we'd be glad for you to approve a variance of the sub-doning ordinance comments that Henry made just a few minutes ago. Recognizing that there is not a curb.

Curb and gutter would only happen on one side of this street. Leave it as that category. Tom, I think that would probably work, wouldn't it? Just to recognize during.

Or does, Tom, do you wish to add a condition that curbs be applied on both sides? You're not interested in creating a waiver of that? Rather, you want to see a condition? I'm unsure if I understand what you're asking.

Actually, what I'd really like is to get a signature from the city saying that... Dan, you know exactly what I'm getting at here. I'd like to get a signature from the city saying that they're okay with this. Because... it's in the subregs that it has to conform. And we've had this discussion about approving things that don't conform. And because we've been saddled with that from previous P&Zs, and I don't want to saddle future P&Zs with that. You're nodding your head, Steve.

I agree.

So that's what I would like. I'd like a signature from the city saying they're okay with this before we saddle them with something that they don't want to in the future accept. Mm-hmm.

or we can require that it conform with the sub-reg.

Well, but we're saying our sub-regs already require that.

That's correct.

So, by not making an exception, We're saying our sub regs require that this street comply with city standards.

I would tend to say that I wouldn't approve it if it doesn't conform to city standards unless the developer gets a signature from the city engineer saying that it's okay for the future. And then maybe the city then can start thinking about whether or not they really want that to be that way in the future. That's what I would say. I think we have a sub reg that we ought to follow.

Mm-hmm. Okay, with that in mind, hold tight to that for a moment. Kendall, do you have anything else you would like to say?

No, do I need to draft a certificate for this city engineer to sign off on? We've got a utility certificate here for the city engineer and the water and sewer engineer to sign this site plan. So adding something for streets is a little... not something we have. We don't have that. There's no format for that. Right.

Because normally you expect the streets to conform. Yeah. That's why you don't have that.

Kendall, is there, other than manufacturing, other than construction costs, is there a reason for not having the curving gutter on the one side? Is it because it would create a backlog of water coming down the hill?

It's just with the density that we have, we've got, you know, the lot slopes from north to south, high up to low. And So you have homes on the high side and you have homes on the low side. In order for the driveways and everything to accommodate that elevation change, it's easier to just have one cross slope on the street, have these homes on the high side a little bit higher than the homes on the low side. So it's just a matter of just making it work with the land and the waters, it's not gonna be an issue because we have curb and gutter all on the low side to intercept all the water we have about, There's five curb inlets on that low side intercepting the water once it gets there.

So even if you put curb inlets on the high side, you'd have all the indentations for all the different driveways?

It doesn't do anything. I mean, it would...

It looks like the driveway's a butt except for those two bits of unit, the two, what, eight-unit sections at 20 feet in there. It's the only place where the driveway's on just contiguous. Yeah.

I actually think this is reasonable. I actually think that what you're proposing is reasonable. I really do. But it doesn't conform with the subreg, which is law. It's not just an administrative thing. And I think that we ought to at least... Have a, you guys understand.

I agree. Okay, so Kendall, I believe someone else wants to speak if you don't have any other comments to make exactly right now.

Can I point one out? Kendall, the buildings are eight feet apart, correct? Yes. Okay. And as we know, that is, our regs are 10. That's another variance, another exception.

What's that? I didn't know that.

The buildings being eight feet apart?

Well, the buildings are technically zero feet apart because they're...

This is where the twist comes from defining it.

If we accept the definition as a condominium, that requirement goes away.

But I do want to point out then we need to, in our conditions, state that.

I mean, the difference between the rendering we see... we were just given today, as opposed to the thing that was in the package, to me is significant. This doesn't, to my mind, make an attachment between the two. This rendering does.

But that does. How is it different?

Hmm?

How is it? I don't see a difference.

Well, this looks like I tacked on a little wall, a little roof over that. This actually looks like part of the structure, and they're shared, and they're... Even though it's not shared. Well, it's owned by one side, I guess.

I would also like to note that in the subreg section 5, there is a... a certification for future acceptance by government, which has the owner's signature on it, so which might make Josh's signature request unnecessary. So it requires the owner to understand that what they're getting is a private street and they will have to do construction and maintenance. So that might be in place of the city signature? No.

Well, and they'd have to rebuild it to standards at any time they ask for dedication and acceptance to the city.

That's right.

That's part of the certificate. That's not something I think this commission wants to put on the owners. No.

It's a required sub regs certificate. Can I just back up? Because I may have called it a private street in the beginning. Let's call it a private driveway that is in a parking lot.

Okay.

Because it really, I mean, if you really start to look at what this is, it's a parking lot. It's a very long parking lot. But I just, we label it private drive on the site plan just so that it's clear that it's not being proposed as a city street. I mean, there's really no difference between this being the 24 foot wide drive lane that runs through the middle of the parking lot at Kroger. I mean, it's, that's what it is. And it will be common area owned by the neighborhood association.

I understand, but the wording was misleading. OK.

I can correct any of those things that you need me to, and I'll print new ones.

There's someone behind you who's kind of desperate to want to speak. I'm sorry, desperate's the wrong word. I'm on the clock, no rush.

Zach Cato, Billings Law Firm. I represent the applicant. I'm on the same team as Kendall. Just a couple of comments. One is what he just said about the private drive is correct. This is just strictly for access to people that are living out there. There's not a connection that goes through. It will be maintained by this condominium association, which will be funded by the people that live out there to make sure it's kept up, to make sure it's in good condition and useful and up to the standards that are approved. so it will be maintained and it won't be maintained by the city. Second of all, on the idea of what is a condominium, really all it is in your zoning ordinance and the definitions is where you have a unit where the interior and some of the exterior units are for private use, and then a portion of the exterior of open space is maintained by condominium association, which is what we're proposing here. It's a little bit different design than if you had an apartment style building with a bunch of condo units, which is more typical what you would see in a lot of condos. This is a different design that gives people a more single family opportunity to have a yard and have a more of a house design but it's going to be run managed set up sold like a condominium with common elements limited common elements the whole nine yards as it pertains to the curb and gutter issues and the approval of this development plan The only thing I would add to that is that in this case, where the curb and gutter on the high side is not going to help intercept water, as Kendall just said, this is a situation that's perfect for some type of exception or waivers pointed out, and if it would resolve this issue, maybe one solution is conditional approval subject to city engineer confirming that yes this is this meets our requirements because forcing them to build curb and gutter on that won't do anything doesn't help will not accomplish anything so this does meet the requirements that way that is addressed the city and if he doesn't agree he doesn't agree we'll be back with some modification or some other request for a a different waiver, but that would let it go forward today and for that process to get resolved and for the city to make sure, I say the city, I mean the engineer, to weigh in and either say yes or no, and if not, we'll be back here. I'm happy to answer any questions that I can, although I may have to defer to Mr. Wise.

Sir, what is your legal reading on whether or not this entire issue goes away if you call this a driveway instead of a street?

The terminology, I don't know. I was not prepared to come in and be talking about this particular issue, so I don't have an answer for you. Just to be honest, Henry's, Mr. Smith's probably the best person for that.

Henry, can you make a... Quick thought. I think it might be moot if they're building it to standards, but for the curb and gutter. I think maybe it's safest for our sake to continue calling it a private street. That's how it was initially presented. But if it's being built to city standards, but for the curb and gutter, and we have a vehicle for dealing with that.

It's on the plat as a curb private drive.

Ah, well.

The word on the plat.

terminology that's not defined in our ordinance. I would almost bet.

It is not. If I may, the definitions, there's a definition for private street and all it says is a means of access within a planned development project that gives access to a public street and is owned and maintained by the property owners, which in this case it is through the Condominium Association. So, this meets the definition of a private street and at the end of the day, that's who's gonna be responsible for it.

Yeah. Any other questions for this gentleman?

Can I suggest that the Platts should use the word private street? Is that okay?

That's what they're saying and I think that's what it should be. That's what is included in our regulations, so it would make more sense to note that on the plat.

So, Henry. Ma'am. Can you advise the commission as to what approval of this as a... as a condominium grouping that's within RM3. What are the future ramifications that we need to consider for the city of Danville by approving this?

I think that until the ordinance changes, you need to be prepared to accept other developments that might show a condominium with this design. One thing I would add to what Mr. Cato was saying about this, and I think he was maybe saying it in broader terms, but aesthetics have to do with this, and where these are for sale, this is a design that's appealing. What I'm sharing with you is something that another lawyer in his firm was saying to me, which is that this design's been used in other communities with great success, and that aesthetics play into it as well as anything else that you've heard this morning.

I mean, personally, I find the rendering that we were given this morning very attractive, and I would think I wouldn't have concern with that.

If I might make a suggestion. So there were a couple different developments that we looked at during tech review to kind of talk about the development. The ones in Richmond have a flat roof, but the ones in Nicholasville have a pitched roof, and I think the pitched roofs look much better. And I think the landscaping makes a big difference. The fencing makes a big difference in the front. And the different colors also make a big difference in the aesthetic and making it look attractive. And the other thing we talked about is, I know we're talking about it now, but if the attachment does anything and if we are willing to kind of... waive the attachment, waive the connecting piece and still allow... Or accept that the roof is the connecting piece. Yeah, that's kind of my... Our discussion in Tech Review was... And our discussion with the city engineer is, does the city want this type of development without the connecting piece? And I think the answer is yes, we do kind of want this development. To me, these are R1C-style lots, and that is what we want in the comp plan. And that's kind of the direction we want to move forward in the zoning ordinance. So all that to say, aesthetics, yes, matter a lot. And so we were just talking about that in tech reviews. Does that connecting piece do anything?

Or can we- But doesn't that make it a condo? It makes it a building, which talks about where we have to have three to eight units per building. I think without that, I'm a little concerned about it.

But since we already have the condos in Shelby Green that are detached, there's already a precedent for it. I don't want to follow that precedent.

I think that that's not a good wording for what happened in Shelby Green.

We're avoiding precedence.

Well, then I think the pitched roofs are much...

It sounds like we're all relatively in favor of this style of subdivision. It's making sure that our regs have wording for it. If the people purchasing these homes or the developer likes the idea of having these things connected and thinks that's good for the product and good for the housing, then I think, great. To me, it wouldn't make any difference if they had those little porches on there or not. If our regs then weren't Then it would make it single family, but our regs don't allow single family. We need to figure out, as I think Josh brought up in tech review, some different wording to reflect the housing density that we want in different areas that's separate from kind of how they're constructed. I think that's kind of where we're going and trying to square that. We do also need to... put some thinking into defining these roads, driveways, and when does it reach a threshold from somebody who's just driveway going to their house, they can put in two strips of gravel if they want, and that's cool, to when we have multiple homes using the same thing, as we've seen, it may not be now, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 15 years, somebody's gonna say, hey, how come the city doesn't come Flower Street? hey, how come the city doesn't fill my potholes? And we're going to say, no, that's the Condo Association, then we go round and round and round. If the road, if the city seems to have, seems to be willing to accept things if they're constructed well to begin with, and they don't want it at all if it's put together cheaply. So we just got to figure out this, because I agree, you could probably call this a parking lot and do whatever you want to with it, but in fifteen years, the homeowners are going to get upset because they've got potholes and nobody's fixing them.

I've got a question to go back to the buildings themselves. Does the porch go, is that associated with the unit that has the access door? Obviously the other people would have to go around to get to it, so...

The way that we've shown it, each unit has a porch. In that one building, all of the porches might be on the left side of the unit, or they might all be on the right side. But they would all be on the right or the left, and there would be a door. There would be one door, and the person would access their porch.

So the unit with that door kind of gets that porch?

Yeah, just one door. I mean, he won't be walking out his door and looking in somebody else's door.

It would be a singular porch.

This picture shows six portions, seven here.

Yeah, I think you just don't see the one on the end. So it's on the opposite side? It'd be on the right.

Yeah. Or even according to the sub regs, that one doesn't necessarily have to have a porch. They're all connected.

Right.

Like, I think this is fairly clever. I think this is a fairly clever way of making this a condo. Okay. According to the regs. I'd be all in approval for this myself if we could have a signature from the city saying that for this particular development, if we're calling this a road, that the city accepts the waiver of the second curb and gutter. Because even engineering-wise, it makes sense for the downhill slope and collection of the water. Okay, and the only reason I'm doing this is because I want us to keep consistent with following our own rules.

If I can correct one item, Private Street is what I think we ended up with, is that right?

Private Street is what it's being called.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am. So are we ready to accept a motion? Mr. Ruby, you seem to be ready to make a motion.

Do you want to do that?

If you don't want to, it's okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd be happy to. I propose that we accept the proposed development as a condominium and an association with a recognition that it will be called a private street upon signature of the city engineer waving for this development, for this particular development and not future developments, the requirement for an uphill gutter and curb.

Anything else I need to add to that, Henry? I think two notes. Kendall was asking about the form of that signature from the city, and I think any written form is appropriate. I don't think we have a plat note that specifically deals with the situation, but any writing from Josh would be acceptable. I think that along with his signature, it's incumbent upon us to make an exception pursuant to Section 1.5 of the subregs, and the justification for that would be that curb and gutter on the low side deals with water because the lay of the land on the high side are less affected.

Correct. And again, stipulating that this is for this particular development and not any other future developments. Right. I think that's the nature of the exception.

Okay. So can I get a second for Mr. Rubies? I'll second that. Thank you. Any further discussion about this?

Steve, is this? Sounds good to me. Yes, sir.

Okay, so then all those in favor of the motion as stated and seconded?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, it passes. Thank you, gentlemen.

Okay, we're gonna move on then to the 858 Ventures.

All right.

It's actually 828, yeah, sorry, I was mistyping. Sorry about that. All right, 828 Ventures LLC has applied for a zoning map amendment on 41.482 acres of land located off Stanford Road, Danville from highway business and general business to single family residential R1C and multifamily residential RM4. This is the current zoning, highway business, and general business. It is right in front of Pioneer's Playhouse. And the 2025 Future Land Use Map is Village Center and Conservation, which calls for central business and general business. And this is just kind of showing you what they are... applying for, so that little sliver on the top is currently zoned Highway Business, and they're asking for that one to be RM4, and then General Business on the bottom side, they're asking to be RM4, and Highway Business and R1C on the right side.

And Director, the items adjacent to the road there, they are still what they are?

Adjacent Pioneer's Playhouse in McAfee or which?

Twinkle, Patel, McAfee on the top. They are what they are. They're highway business.

They were approved, yeah, a few months ago.

That does not change?

No, no. That's fine. But that's just kind of to show you a little bit more.

Does the road change, the street access? I don't think it changes, does it?

No, that was the connecting street from McAfee's landscaping.

Yeah, that set of day slings there?

Yes, yeah, on that L1. And again, you have the tech review minutes in your digital packet. And the discussions in tech review were about the consistency with the future land use map. But in tech review, we discussed that this zone is actually less dense than what was planned for the future land use map. So there were no staff concerns with this type of development.

On this picture while we have it up, the bottom bottom is the flood, the red area?

Yes, that's the floodplain area.

So you have that wrapped around the bottom?

Yes, and those are the R1C zones. That green area is the R1C single-family zone.

And that's available, the blue at the top is the? RM4. RM4 category. So those are the building positions projected or the lots projected into it. Also in the bottom left-hand corner, they refer to a term of future connection arrows there. Is that what that is? Over on the left side?

Future connection J.E. Woods Drive.

But there's a gap between that and the actual drive. There's no street. That does not access anywhere yet.

Yes, but it'll be stubbed for future connection.

And J.E. Woods Drive is actually the road that goes... back there?

It goes to the left.

Yeah.

It goes back in the town. So what I'm getting to is you've got access to the major road on the top.

Right.

And a future road on the bottom for this entire subdivision.

But currently it would only have one access to the road.

That is correct. Right. And it is a big, it is a big subdivision. How many, how many buildings and plats and things were we talking about, count wise?

I believe it's listed

I'm concerned about traffic coming into Main Street from Sanford Road with adding additional more cars. I mean, it's a lot of traffic we're adding.

There were somewhere around 220 building structures, if you count the apartments, potential with cars and vehicles is what I was getting to.

Okay. And I know they did a traffic study for this development. And they approved it? KYTC said that Again, this was less dense and would cause less traffic than what was fluid.

The only thing I would...

The State Highway Department did it?

KYTC.

Yeah, the traffic study will remember all these. Just look at the number of trips, and they count the number of trips.

It won't take that long to have to wait to turn left on the 9th Street. The number of trips. Well, I think I would want them to look at it more in depth.

Streamland is about half the number of houses with three accesses to the road. We have one access to begin with, with twice as many potential homes.

Mm-hmm.

you're going to have a lot of traffic coming out that single access to that road.

At that one exit point.

At that one exit point. So, Steve, to go with supporting yours, it's very important to me that that access road and the traffic study considered that factor in thinking about this.

If we made them all turn right, we'd be okay. Yeah, they're all going to be turning left.

Down at the bottom, it says connection to Clark's Run Trail. Is that not a road?

Not yet. The connection.

The other one says future, and that one says connection.

What's the difference?

That's where the vehicle, yeah. It's not a car or vehicle. As I get the feeling that that's where the creek is, you've got to build a bridge. I didn't go walking out there, but you're in the area where you're going to probably have to build a bridge.

And that's why this connection is future? Because it would require a bridge?

I think. Forgive me. I didn't go walking out to see it. That's a pretty good walk. But it is.

Pull your microphone up closer to us that might have been the full From PVA that might have been the full tract including the McAfee property so yeah, that's a miss typo in the tech review minutes and

But it's the 41 shown on the Planning Commission agenda is correct?

Yes, yeah, as to what they are asking for a zone change for.

Right.

Is there someone who wishes to speak in favor of this in public hearing?

Zach Cato, Billings Law Firm, for the applicant. who's represented here by Mr. David Leone, who's talking to Kendall, and then also Kendall's on this. I'm sure you're surprised Kendall's on this project. I'm going to hand out copies of the slides. It's very brief, I promise, but just in case this is easier to read. Is there a clicker I can use? All right. We agree with the staff report, the analysis. We're in agreement, obviously, that this complies with the comprehensive plan on the future land use map, which is the legal standard for a zone change. So, we appreciate that from the staff. Currently, this property, the full 51 and some odd acres several years ago, was all redezoned for potential development that's going to be all commercial. Those two properties that are right on Stanford Road, they're not part of what we're doing today. That's a different, that's gonna remain commercial, so they're still gonna be commercial, but the property that we're dealing with today that's a little bit off Stanford Road is not gonna be residential, so it's a lower intensity use than what you would expect for a commercial center where you have a bunch of people coming and going all day long. so a little less intense even though there's gonna be a number of units here. These are compatible uses with what's already in this area. You've got commercial businesses existing and more planned to go along Stanford Road. There's residential out there, there's apartments to one side of this property, Admiral Stadium on one side, a future connection to a public street in J.E. Woods Drive. So when this is built out and finished, there will be better traffic connectivity in this neighborhood to go from Stanford Road other ways and for traffic to go around once that connection is made, which this development will help accomplish. If you look here, I just outlined in red the general area of the property we're talking about just to demonstrate there's those remaining commercial properties along Stanford Road. to the plan north of what our property is and nothing's changing there. We're not proposing anything different there. Really don't have a lot to add to this. The R4 multifamily apartment will be on the plan left over on the side where Admiral Stadium is. And then basically everything else is R1C single-family detached traditional housing back there.

That section that's right down here by the edge of it and the floodplain that's quite a bit larger, is that just a lot? No, right there. Yeah. Is that just going to be a lot or is that just somebody gets a much larger yard?

I believe that's the case, right? Yeah. It's because that's a bulb cul-de-sac like that and with a lot of furniture requirements and the way that the geometry is, it just kind of blows out that angle and makes it a bigger lot, but some idols have a primo lot back there, I guess.

Do you guys own the property to the west, sorry, to the east side of the village apartments?

No.

That's owned by somebody else. Is there any other... option for you guys to put in a second street to go into there from an engineering standpoint.

I'll defer to Kendall on the details, but here's my understanding of it is because that's a state road, they call the shots on where the entrances go, where the exits go, how much distance you have to have between them, where they can go, and there's already a number of existing entrances. And so this is designed to work with the existing entrance and to be as non-disruptive to what's already there and to comply with what the state's going to ask for. That's going to have to be approved by them no matter what we want to do. So that's a process that we're going to have to go through and it's going to have to Satisfy them since that's a state road and that's that's not explicitly part of what you have to vote on today, but that's a Bigger issue that's going on that we're gonna have to still satisfy that but that reason is why first of all, we don't own the properties on Sanford Road to make the connection we kind of have to work with the ones existing through those properties and that's where it is and So we kind of inherited that. As far as the comprehensive plan, your staff report lays it out well. We're adding additional residential housing here and multiple types of housing, which is something the comp plan calls for. It's not just a bunch of one thing. It's a mix of things which we're providing. It's appropriate for this area, which already has some activity. We're not going out in the middle of nowhere and bringing something where there's nothing existing. There's already Development out there. There's already development approved out there for other things so that really complies with the Comprehensive plan as far as where these developments should be located As far as the traffic impact study we submitted with this application Palmer engineering prepared that and studied the data that's available over time one of their takeaways was that traffic in this area has been it's flat you know over the last 10 years it's been pretty consistent when they analyze the existing data versus what they would expect to see when you account for the planned trips that would be added by these new lots the analysis is that the level of service which is the measuring stick you have for this travel this uh traffic is at a C, which is considered desirable. In an urban setting, even D could be acceptable, but this would stay at C. So that's assuming all this stuff is built out, it means there's no meaningful change from current conditions as far as traffic stacking and delays. And that'll get even better once that connection to J.E. Woods Drive is eventually made, because then you'll have other ways through, other ways out, if there's a wreck somewhere, if emergency services need to access, that gets even better over time. So this has been addressed and is not going to make a radical change, especially considering the use that was previously affirmed on this property that's in place today is for a strictly commercial use. which would have more traffic and more intense traffic, especially during the day, this will be less than that and will be spread out more throughout the day, which is just typical of residential as opposed to commercial. The final thing is when this property was developed or was first approved for development, I think back in 2018 or so, when the whole property, including those two lots on Stanford Road, it was all going to be commercial. And because of that, there were some additional conditions that were added on the whole property at that time. And this is a summary. The note that got included is much longer, but for ease of reading, I've kind of summarized what they're about. But it's about commercial building sizes, commercial signage, buffering the commercial buildings, the design and appearance of the commercial buildings, and then connecting to the Danville sanitary sewer system, that the road entrances are to be approved by KYTC subject to a traffic study, which we've done and which KYTC still has to approve, and then lastly that there is a greenway reservation in the 25 feet that's along Stanford Road. These conditions basically don't apply to this particular part of the property in this development. It shouldn't apply because we're not proposing commercial anymore. So it will have no impact on this anyway to those extent they're talking about commercial. We are going to connect to the Danville Sanitary Sewer System. That's where the connection is going to have to be made. There's no alternative that's going to be done. I mentioned the traffic entrances in KYTC earlier. That's going to get done because they are the decision maker. The state is on that. And if they don't approve it, we have to come back with something different that they would approve. And then lastly, that greenway is not on property. As part of this request today, it's not on the property we own. So to the extent that was reserved previously as part of the bigger development, that's already been done. but it's not on the property that we have in front of you today. So based on that, we're asking in addition to the zone change to these residential zones that it be approved with no conditions and removing these conditions to the extent they apply to this part of the property because they're not relevant and the ones that are have already been satisfied by what we've done. So just a clean approval. of the zone change and the proposed development with removing the existing conditions and no additional ones. So that's our request. I've added a sample motion if you'd like to look at it for what can ask for.

Can I ask for a clarification in that category of conditions? Our standard properties have some regulations about perimeters and dimensions. You're fine with those?

Oh, absolutely anything that's in the zoning ordinance or the sub regulations that applies to. Those dimensional things, lot design, buffering, landscaping, we're going to comply with whatever is required of us. We're not asking for anything special.

So just be the reason you're going to residential or M3 type of apartment structures, whatever is on the regs, you're fine with it. That's fine. But you're just trying to remove the original commercial highway business type of things. Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this?

I don't know if it's time for me to speak or not. My name is Melvin Harris and I have property connected to this area. So if it's appropriate for me to address it now or wait till later, I can do so.

Are you speaking in favor of this or in opposition?

No, I'm in favor of it.

Okay, go forward.

Okay, I have a couple questions. I keep on hearing the word one exit. When you go in on Stanford Road, wouldn't that also be an exit to come back out, or is this going to be a one-way in and one way out?

We're interpreting it as a two-way drive.

Okay.

At least that's what I am.

Okay, then my next question is down here where you got this Collector's Street running into J.E. Woods Drive. Are you familiar that J.E. Woods Drive is right there at the projects, coming through the projects? Okay.

I am, but it's also not part of, it's not happening now according to that paperwork we have.

Okay.

I don't know when that will be.

It's envisioned as something in the future, right?

But we don't know when for sure.

On the same note, I see some of the conditions talking about connecting all this to the sewer system and everything that the city provides for them. Now, here comes a trick question to the commissioners and everyone hearing in my voice that at Duncan Hill, which is on the top of this, when you go into Duncan Hill, Right at the start of the cemetery was a county line at one time. It's been annexed by the city all the way to the bottom of it, even down through the flood zone and past my house where I live. The thing that I would like to see happen in the future, we do not have a sewer system or a gas line on our street, which would include 10 houses past... What the county line used to be, you off annexed all of it. And right now I am on, run my house off a furnace that's a furnace bought fuel. And it's R1 and R2, but here it is, the fuel is same price as diesel. I would like to see a gas line come all the way over this hill. Cause this here is gonna be right across the street from that. And a sewer line, if possible, in the future. Because it's very expensive down on that end for me. Like I say, we have 10 houses below this line. Everybody's on septic tank and electric only. Like they're putting in consideration. And they go along with all this good planning going on on the lower side of the hill. Think about up on the top side where you are. You are doing a great job. And doing what you're doing, you've annexed all of that. The cemeteries are beautiful. The land is beautiful. Now I like some of the features that go along with this land. My name, I live at 845 Duncan Hill Road. Thank you all for hearing me.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Okay, let's have discussion then. Commissioner?

Yes. This particular is to address just the zoning change. The amendment requested to go to the heavier density, is that correct? They'll do a plat submittal or an actual building.

Yeah, we're still going to see a plat approval as a next step, right?

Yes, site development plan.

Site development plan, yeah. That's something we'll get later. Yes. So when I look there and all those comments about entrance and exits, yeah, you need it to the property, but the road element and how those look at this point can change.

And I would just comment that to... Commissioner Griffith's point, I reviewed the traffic study that was in the office. And it did look at all of the ins and outs that are hitting Stanford Road. Now, none of that considers what does that do to anywhere else in the city. But it did look very carefully at what the traffic pattern does to that Stanford Road exits. And it will reason.

It didn't affect the negative.

It didn't affect anything. It met all the requirements that a traffic study would have to.

Okay, but just saying it meets the requirements, does that mean, I mean, it doesn't mean that it's more acceptable now than it is today.

doesn't mean it's worse yeah doesn't i can only imagine it's going to be worse unless everybody goes out to stanford road i think it the way i interpreted the traffic study it said the additional traffic onto stanford road was low enough that it would not require any additional improvements to Stanford Road to accommodate that traffic. That's the way I look at it.

It's not, yes, that's correct. It's Stanford Road. It's not the road inside that area.

And it's not looking at what it connects to or anything? I don't know if it's involved in the traffic study.

Yeah, I mean... Well, the traffic study assumes... full build-out of this area with the number of trips that they would calculate from each of these houses. It assumes that there won't be any more congestion.

Right. Exactly.

The road is designed to accommodate it.

Right.

That's the way I understood it.

The road is, yes, but the intersections aren't.

Well, the traffic state considers that intersection with Stanford Road.

Okay. But they're saying that the intersection will not be impacted negatively?

Correct.

Okay.

I don't believe that. They're saying the intersection can handle the amount of traffic coming in and out of this subdivision. Again, we're using the definitions, and I don't know what they're defining that means. Okay. I got you. I know. I'm not trying to be argumentative. No, I'm just saying it's like, okay, because I was curious about the same thing, and I wanted to look at the traffic.

When I asked questions earlier before we had the open discussions otherwise, I was pointing out the fact that there are about 218 places people live there, and each will have a set of cars. That's a lot of traffic. And right now, the layout, but I didn't, I wasn't trying to suggest that that Stanford Road could not accommodate that. I think it'll accommodate. Right. It's just that.

So one has to consider that across the way, there's the playhouse, which could have a lot of people coming in and out of it. Down the way is the stadium, which could have a lot of people coming in and out of it. And now you're going to add residences that have only one entry access coming at the current time with a lot of houses of folks who could be coming in and out of it.

That is correct. And the traffic study is supposed to understand and accommodate that.

Right. And the traffic study, I believe, accounts for the, how do I say this, periodicity.

It allows for extra times.

Danville Stadium comes out all in a, you know, on Friday nights. And Pioneer Playhouse comes out at a certain time on a certain night. And these come out in and out with some distribution over time.

Right.

Probably start, school, end is the biggest issue.

I don't have a problem with the zoning change. I think it should be changed. I worry about adding more traffic and the delays that occur.

I'm concerned about the future ramifications. Yeah.

So the site development later that we'll see will help us.

Right.

Okay.

All right. Do we have additional discussion? Tom?

I have the same concerns that Steve and Madam Chairman have. I also have to hold my concerns back to say who's the competent authority that gets to make that recommendation. And so, like, we've had people here actually in public hearings say, when I've made the point that the state is the competent authority, and when they make that, I've heard people say, well, you can't trust anything they say. Well, we have to go to whoever that competent authority is, right? And so, yes, it's going to have an impact on the Stanford Road Main Street issue. But that's Josh's sticky booger to deal with, right? Or the traffic engineer's. And so I do have, I share the same concerns, but I have to say that if the state says that the road can handle this, then that clears me of, you know, whatever. I will be, I do also think that it's in, no? I do also think that this is in line with exactly what we did with the master plan.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I would like it very well if it had more than one. Yeah, me too.

I'd like it even better if it had two entrances. That's why I asked the question about who owns that property around the other side. Not like you guys couldn't have already thought. It's not like you haven't already thought about that. I bet you have.

concerned about what it takes to turn left on Main Street.

Why shouldn't they be?

That's another question. That's what I'm saying. They're going to say, well, there's on 150 there's so much traffic, maybe these guys have to put a turn lane in. That would be the only impact of a traffic study in this area. They're not concerned about what's the rest of the traffic on 150. So it's going to be irrelevant. I think the only... We talked about multiple entrances. I think it would be great if you could connect the drive there and build apartments maybe through one of those lots so that if you have a apartment complex catches on fire or something. Fire, flood. Fire, flood, yeah. There's an alternate exit route for safety, but that's also not part of... see.

Well, and I think that becomes part of the comments that we're making here, and when we see the site development plan, we'll see if there's anything that could be done to help address that. But before us today is the zoning amendment. Let me respond to that a little bit.

This is an adjacent point to what we're talking about with dealing with ingress and egress, but I hear some discussion of this is just the zoning. And I think that's true. That's what we're asked to approve today. And I'm not recommending one way or the other about ingress or egress. But if you want anything to be in the development plan that exceeds the baseline standards of the ordinance, Now is the time to ask for it. Now is the time when you have discretion. I don't think there's anything that permits you at the development plan stage to hold the developer's feet to the fire and say, you have to do something more than the basic standards. I think it's probably still appropriate for us to defer to state transportation engineers in what we put on that road. But where I've heard some discussion, I've watched the most recent city commission meeting where they were pushing back and saying, well, we get these zone changes with too many conditions. I think the zone change is the only time you can apply conditions. So if there's something you want more than what's basic, now's the time to discuss it, even though we're only talking about zoning.

What is the future of this connection? When is that? Are we talking 10 years? Next year, which is five months away?

Did you want to address... Are you willing to address that question?

The timing of this potential future connection to the J.E.

Woods Drive? There's a whole host of traffic changes that are going to happen in this area in the future. And David had just finished speaking with the city manager about a roundabout happening at this proposed intersection. So there's a lot of things, and, you know, we... we present some changes here all the time a lot of times we try to kick the can down the road and say well if you'll just approve this zone change we'll get you a traffic study whenever we come back we've done everything that's that's been asked that that should be asked and should be presented with a zone change and and uh you know i just the whole questions about well the butterfly effect i mean what what's this going to do to traffic in harrisburg i mean It's got to stop somewhere. I mean, we look at the immediate vicinity of our project and make sure it's going to stay safe.

I think it's fair that we're not trying to ask you what happens on Main Street. as a result of this. I understand that. But I think Commissioner Justice is asking, what's the timing foreseen, or can you comment about the timing foreseen for this connection to J.E. Woods? So J.E.

Woods Drive, it's labeled and it's actually paved, and it runs through a park that the city owns, and it provides access to the lagoon that's adjacent to our property. It makes a turn and turns to the south. It's a 10-foot wide paved road right now. But it does turn into a curb and gutter street once you move further to the west. So the city's property is there where Jay E. Woods Drive is, and there's park property and lagoon property south of the road. To the north of that is the KSD property. So the ideal alignment for our proposed street connection to happen with J.E. Woods Drive would be to cut that little corner and cross over the KSD property. So the city of Danville would be the most likely person to be able to purchase public property. it's not our property. We can't extend the road across KSD's property to make that happen. But the city has asked us, both in the past and, you know, currently and recently, that we stub the street so that that connection can happen in the future. You know, it'll be up to the city to make something happen there. We can't just go off, expand J.E. Woods Drive, take property from KSD. So I, you know...

What's the plan? How long is it going to take to make this subdivision?

It will happen quickly. Is it going to be in that realm? Just based on the people that I'm working with, I think this will happen quickly.

You're saying the housing will happen within a year? It would start, yes.

And David, would you like to comment some about what you... And we we've, we've, we've also got the improvements that the state's making to ghost pipe, which is gonna alleviate a lot of the traffic coming into Danville. Those things are gonna get routed around. So there's gonna be less traffic on Stanford road. Plus we're asking to just 300 feet away from this proposed entrance is the, the, the change from 45 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour.

Right.

And we're asking the city to help us lobby the state to move, move that down to where the trail crosses the highway.

Yeah.

And. So that stretch could then be reduced from 45 miles per hour to 35. So there's a lot of variables in David.

Yeah, so I'm David Leone. I'm the developer. And I was actually just talking to Earl and Josh before this meeting, and we were actually just talking about traffic and the impact of this. So it's not, you know, your question's not completely unreasonable. You know, like you said, we had the traffic study done, which... Shows the impact that this is gonna have to Stanford Road They are they have a call Josh has a call with Palmer engineering to do a more comprehensive traffic study You know, it's that's not a developer responsibility like, you know, I turn in a an encroachment permit to KYTC You know, they've got regulations that they follow. Okay, this meets the regulations. Yes. It needs a turn lane No, it doesn't need a turn lane. But obviously, you know, we all have the same concern and Josh and Earl are you know, have the same concern. And so we were talking about lots of things this morning, the connection to J Woods Drive and the timing of that. you know how it needs to line up with this subdivision being developed and we you know and we've already built a good relationship and we'll work in partnership to make sure that's done you know one of the things that he had suggested was in him in his mind at some point you know a roundabout would go real good there you know those are all state and and city decisions you know that i you know my goal is to bring something to danville danville needs which is housing you know Danville, when I did my study, you know, it's short, many rooftops in this area, affordable, you know, these aren't million dollar homes, 250 to $400,000 homes is what we're going to bring to the Danville community, you know, and some rental units that are much needed by Center College and, you know, from what I understand. So all these things are, you know, reasonable concerns and questions and you know, the people, the authoritative bodies are, are, are having those conversations. Um, you know, I just wanted to let, wanted to, wanted you to know we were having those conversations before I came in here actually. So it's not unreasonable. You have any other questions? Did that answer your question? Like we, we were going to, You know, J.E. Woods Drive will connect when that's appropriate. Like, they already have a plan in place, you know, or starting the plan to say, okay, you know, we get the subdivision, you know, I'll put in that first street first, likely, you know, and, you know, when that starts to get belted out, when it seems like there's a reasonable amount of traffic, you know, they will make that connection to J.E. Woods Drive is what my understanding from our conversation.

I've been in the situation, and I also am a builder myself, so... I lived in an area that was a dead-end street north and south. When I bought my property, it was supposed to be a loop. I moved from there 12 years ago, and it's still not done. Still not done, yeah. And I was promised. That's why I built there. I wanted the in and an out.

I understand. Well, as a builder, we can only build on the land we have. But I do know the spirit is to work in partnership to make sure that this has a positive impact on the community and not a negative impact. That's what I want to do. The goal is to serve some families that are going to live here. That's my goal.

Well, I'm pleased that you talked about it prior and you're going to continue to talk about it. Yes, sir. That's our only alleviation is when is it going to happen.

Thank you, sir.

Yes.

So I would like to make a comment in response to your comment, Kendall. And that is that I understand that sometimes it feels as if the Planning and Zoning Commission is putting undue burden on those who come forward with future plans. But you have to remember that part of what our goal is is not only changing zones, but planning for the future of the community and the citizens that we serve. And so we have to be always diligent to be thinking about will what we approve create greater safety, greater affordability, greater living conditions for those people that we're serving. And so it's not that we want to make it hard on anyone, it's that we want to do the right thing and we want to come forward publicly with having done the right thing. So sorry if it feels like we're putting undue burden on you, but this is a time when we can consider these sorts of things.

Ma'am, I also think it is important to acknowledge what they just said, that there are multiple issues that are being, or multiple projects that are being worked at this time. You know, the Ghost Pike is something that is, you know, they're putting in a whole new road around there. Yeah, the Connector Road. Yeah, the Connector Road I do think is going to actually make a big difference. And... I've had to reconcile this in my own mind to say, well, because I used to want to say, well, I don't want to give approval for this until, you know, you can fix something else down the road, but something always has to precede something else. And so I do think that, you know, the idea of a roundabout, that was in my mind. I said, somebody's going to tell them to put a roundabout out there. Well, apparently they've already talked about that, okay? And if it puts more, you know, If this goes through and it puts more pressure somewhere else, they're going to alleviate that pressure. I'm appreciative of what they're saying and I do think that the projects, the connector is something that is helping me to think through this.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. Okay.

I've got a comment. I want to talk about a completely different set of circumstances. Go ahead. I was concerned because a large portion of this development area is in sinkhole, and I think that we may want to condition approval of the zoning change that the recommendations in the geotechnical plan be incorporated in the development.

Do you want to address comments? I'd like to address that comment. Go ahead. David has hired a geotechnical engineer, and we submitted the report. And they've hypothetically identified all the sinkholes. And so in order to fully explore the sinkhole, it has to be excavated. But there is a plan and a geotech. engineer that's that's expected to be participating in the project they're going to remediate and stabilize the sinkholes that are that are going to be supporting structures so we there are two two very large sinkholes and there are some other small ones and and we're well aware of their but you know and we're going to be working with them and around them and we got to excavate and find exactly where the opening is and then start from there with the stabilization of it

All I was saying is I just think we should incorporate that condition in with the approval, since from what Henry was saying, this is our time to make those kind of conditions.

And I think the geotext report, I mean, it identifies the locations of those, and it has recommendations stated in it for how to stabilize and remediate them. Mm-hmm.

Appreciate the inclusion of the geotech report. That was, I think, the first time I've seen one in one of these applications.

I think probably wherever there are major sinkholes like that, we ought to be looking at something like that because they could be a real problem if you don't develop the problem.

Thank you.

Hannah, I wanted to ask on a different subject if there's anything lost by the removal of conditions that were applied to the previous zoning on this property. I saw in Mr. Cato's letter where he says that was aimed at the commercial forward type of development. Are you comfortable with the removal of those conditions?

Yes, I think... he said all of those conditions were for commercial development except for the sewer which will have to be um will have to happen anyway okay um so i'm comfortable with removing all those all right thank you dan are you ready to make a yes so i'd like to make motion to approve the proposed zoning map amendment as we've heard before us it is

based on what we have heard today, consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the future land use map, and in agreement with all of those. I would include the removal of the conditions from the previous zone sections.

and incorporating applicant counsel's letter as further justification. Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Do I have a second? You were not... Should we also include... Make sure we got the geotech report completed and reacted to that the applicant will address the geotech issues or concerns about sinkholes?

Yeah, I mean, I guess I'm viewing that as... I put my engineer hat on, and I say that's going to be a requirement for them to even just do any construction. They're going to have to do that and mitigate any sinkholes that are there.

The report is done. I mean, the recommendations for stabilization are there. The only thing that still has to happen is excavation to find the actual throw of the sinkhole.

I don't mind including in the motion, if it's okay with the applicant, the remediation for the sinkholes as recommended in the geotech report.

That's what I really wanted to do because it was brought up as a specific topic in this range.

So I would include that in the motion, Henry, if I could.

I'm looking for a second then.

A second.

Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please say yes or raise your hand. Okay, thank you.

Motion approved. Good luck.

Thank you, gentlemen. If it's all right with the group, I'd like to take a five-minute break, and we'll be right back. for allowing a short break. We'll go on to the next item that's part of public hearing, which was tabled from June. Ms. Hanna, you want to walk us through number three on the agenda?

Yes, so I think it's listed on your agenda as, or I put it on the presentation earlier as article one, two, three, and four, but it's only article four that is amended, and this is in your digital packets as well. So there was a lot of...

So is this what we have in front of us?

No, that in front of you is for subdivision regulations, Article 2 and Article 4. You don't have the zoning amendments up in front of you because they were 100 pages, and they are still kind of being tweaked on, or being amended, so... But I did kind of want to walk you through a little bit of them. Let me just pull it up real quick.

So do we want to leave them on the table since we don't have them in front of us? Or are we ready to talk about them?

Yes. I was just hoping to kind of discuss some of these changes because some of them were brought up during tech review of the discussions in tech review about kind of wanting more flexible zones as far as single family homes and

apartment complexes so you're bringing this forward as Discussion but not voting since we don't have it. Yes, correct.

Yeah Okay, go ahead. So we had an advisory committee meeting about two weeks ago and we were discussing the Zoning districts which were also brought up during tech review when we had this that plat in front of us So we had discussed potentially removing rural residential, but when I sat down with the city engineer and previously in other advisory committee meetings, we had discussed streamlining the residential districts. So in the update, we kind of do update the zoning districts into ag district, rural residential, and then residential one through six to better align the updated zoning districts with the comprehensive, the future land use map. So R1 would be garden residential. R2 would be neighborhood residential. R3, village residential. R4, core residential. R5, hub residential. And then R6, community residential. And it kind of goes from density. So R1 would be essentially the R1A, single family. But the R3, R4 would be potentially flex zones to allow for single family homes, essentially like R1C and RM2 because we see a lot of developers that want single family homes and RM4 at the same time. So the idea of the flex zone is to allow R1C zones and RM2 zones and depend on the density and not the, is it a single family, is it a duplex, is it a townhome, is it a twin home, and worry less about the definition and more about the density and the amount of units per acre. But after that, neighborhood business, general business, central business, highway business, office and professional, institutional campus development district and public districts don't change for the business districts. Light, heavy, and industrial business development district has not changed either. So it's just the residential districts. I'm hoping to... streamline the residential districts R1A, B, and C, and RM2, 3, and 4 into the R1 through 6 zones to better align them with the future land use map. And reorganize it to better align with the comp plan, but also there are updates being done to the Danville Architectural Heritage Board guidelines as well. So they are updating their sign regulations and this would also streamline and better coordinate with those regulations. I'm still trying to go through this Article IV ordinance to switch those original zones into the new zoning designations, into the R1 through R6 zones, but I do hope that, I want to take Article IV and look at it more comprehensively with the whole ordinance because it does, I mean, there are so many things that connect in Article 4 with Article 5, 6, 7, and 8, which falls into the enforcement side. So I think it's almost there. But I think, which is why I also have the advisory committee meeting scheduled in front of you. I just think there needs to be a more in-depth look at the comp plan to implement.

So since this is not consistent with what the advisory committee recommended when we met recently. I think this is going to have to go back to the advisory committee for further discussion of what changes you have made.

Would you, others on the advisory committee, Just for myself, I don't view taking R1ABC and R2ABC and making R1 to 6 streamlining.

To me, that doesn't streamline our... Yeah, I thought we were going to collapse all of those zones into fewer zones. That is what we talked about when we built the comprehensive plan, was that we were going to actually make fewer zones instead of... Like, we had a lot of zones right now. in the original ordinance, and we talked about actually streamlining most of those into garden neighborhood, village neighborhood, village center, and downtown. And those, like we talked about those would be four zones. Right, exactly. Without letters and numbers like R and, you know, and that we talked about like one exclusive zone, right? That was garden neighborhood would be exclusive, right? A single type of single family, okay? And then village neighborhood would be more inclusive, which would be, you could accept duplexes and single family homes. So you wouldn't have to have two zones next to each other, right? And then the next one would be even more inclusive, right? You could have single family homes and commercial and apartments above. So we talked about it. I see that as simplification, going fewer, and then the further down the list you go becomes more inclusive.

Commissioner Ruby, I was going to say, this is what jumped out at me looking at it, is are we talking about making the zones limited to and consistent with the future land use map designations?

Yes.

I guess the concern I would raise about that is that then the future land use map becomes strictly prescriptive of what type of zone map amendments we can approve. And I know, as your directors pointed out, that's one part of the comp plan. You don't necessarily have to follow it, but the only way I've ever seen it, and nothing requires this, but the only way I've ever seen it is that future land use map designations are broader and inclusive of a couple of zones each. There might still be a need to collapse some of these zones and reduce the number of them, but having four zones and having those be the same in the ordinance as in the comp plan, it might just change the way that our analysis works.

And in fairness to the discussion, if you said we're looking to have a low density, medium density, high density differentiation, and we need three residential zones. And whether you call that R123 or garden neighborhood other descriptors, it's still three levels of density.

I don't see a need for six. I'm advocating for three at least. Well, my issue is that we had a discussion of the

committee, the advisory committee, and we had a direction that we believed that we were going to be going. Now we have something that's not in front of us but is in digital that we have to quickly decide where we're going to be going with. It seems to me we need more time to reflect on this and discussion within advisory. I think that would be better than trying to hash it out.

This is not an easy topic to resolve.

Not an easy topic.

And anything you can do to help is valuable to have. If you truly need to have it expanding to six, that's fine. I mean, we have an RM-2 that's a duplex and an RM-2 that's a townhouse. We've already split it. It's in paperwork today. It's one of those. You'll find those nuances. That's part of the reason you're trying to clean these up a little bit. So go back and look at it again.

It's my comment. So when we make these amendments, this also has to go to the magistrates, is that right? Yes. Okay. So I think a graphic of some sort would be helpful, whether it's like a... Venn diagram or something that shows, okay, this is, as Tom said, the garden neighborhood. That's exclusive. That's only going to be single-family homes. You go out to the next level, like, okay, now this would include single-family homes, but it would also include duplexes and quads and small businesses, right? But show it kind of zooming out or something like that.

Making the distinction, because you've asked, and I think it's a great request, to try to have more quantitative measures. So, our ability to talk about it in terms of density, as opposed to, and set some numbers around that, gets us away from having this conversation of, is this a condo or isn't it? It's a density question.

Yeah, and like in the comp plan, we had some images of what This is this is so so we can have words in there, but I think also having. You know, you have something like this that by each one that kind of gets us an idea that later on, somebody can say, yeah, what they're proposing doesn't have this intent or yes, it does have this intent because I. I think this is a great example. I don't care whether they have a porch or not have a porch.

Right, but the only reason they put that porch in there is to try to be consistent with what our zoning ordinance says.

Yes, to make this one eight-unit piece instead of eight single-family homes. So it's the same thing. We just need to make it work with our regs. We need to make our regs like this is the intent based on number of units per area or whatever. Density. It can't be the definition of density.

So I really am not ready to talk today about what your suggestion in relating to item number three. I think we need to take what you're suggesting back to advisory. Agreed. Unless the rest of the commissioners are... No, I agree.

I agree. And... The alternative, I think, would be to have us create a subcommittee to work with Hannah on specific draft if we don't want to use advisory committee to do that.

That's what advisory committee ought to be for.

If we're all okay with the advisory committee, then it makes sense to do that.

So can we move on to number four? Yes. All right. So number four is article two and article four of the subdivision regulations.

I'm so sorry. Could we have a motion to table?

Oh, yes. I'll make a motion to table that item three.

And Mr. Ruby seconds. All those in favor? Okay. Thank you. Now number four. Sorry.

Article two. No, you're right. Article two and article four of the subdivision regulations. You have them in front of you. Article 2 is a few updates. In Section 2.1, I updated the language to take out his and he and just change it to they to make it more inclusive. Just cleaned up the language a little bit. Section 2.2, I updated the major definitions to, after we discussed this with the magistrates, This was what we discussed in the advisory committee as well. A major subdivision is the subdivision of land that meets one or more of the following criteria, creates more than one subdivision of land within any consecutive 12-month period, regardless of the number of lots proposed. or creates four or more lots, including the parent tract, within a period of five years, or further divides a parent tract that has been the subject of a reported minor plat within the previous five years, or requires the construction, improvement, or widening of streets, or the extension of major construction of utility lines or public services, or involves land determined to contain areas both within and outside the floodplain district, and requires a topographic survey under section four. And all major subdivisions shall submit a traffic safety evaluation. So this is new language. The planning commission or the planning director may also require a traffic impact study, a drainage plan, or a topographic survey when they determine that additional analysis is necessary for subdivision approval. No major subdivision shall be approved until all required studies have been reviewed and accepted by the planning commission. and all major subdivision approval shall occur through the Planning and Zoning Commission, including a public hearing and review by the Technical Review Committee. So in the Advisory Committee, we discussed that the traffic study is burdensome to small scale, small, major subdivisions. So people who are not building a full development subdivision, but people who are just, you know, selling off bit by bit of their, um, land. So that cost is burdensome. And then a lot of the times the traffic studies don't really tell us information that is relevant, um, because we don't hit that point. So we have come up with the traffic safety valuation, um, which is all explained it in article four, because that's where it, um, is expanded, but it's essentially a, um, applicant evaluation that discusses the access points and safety of that road. But we can go into depth on that.

Okay, let's continue on with Article 2 then.

Section 2.3 talks about minor subdivisions, and this is updated. A subdivision that meets the criteria of this section shall be classified as a minor subdivision unless it meets any major subdivision criteria. Minor subdivisions shall demonstrate adequate infrastructure, including adequate water pressure and flow for residential use, adequate road capacity and pavement condition, availability of wastewater disposal through public sewer or health department, approval for onsite systems, and availability of electric and other utilities. Lock consolidations, boundary adjustments, and technical revisions that do not create new lots or public improvements should also be classified as minors. And minor subdivision plots shall be approved administratively by Planning and Zoning Commission staff. And then no changes to Section 2.4. And those were all the updates to Article 2.

So let's talk about this before you go on to Article 4. Are there questions, comments? This was discussed during the advisory committee, so these things come as recommendations from advisory, correct?

And for those who were not with us, this also was discussed at our joint meeting with the magistrates. So it addresses the issue that we were trying to address a year ago with the five-acre, one-acre differentiation. That's where this comes from. So, and I think the magistrates are in agreement that this sufficiently addresses that issue for them.

Any comments?

Hannah, where it says minor subdivision flats shall be done administratively, I think that's a good efficiency. I wonder if you would be interested in having it say that they may be done administratively so that if there's something complex, you can still send it to the Planning Commission.

Yeah, I can make that change.

Instead of shall, you were saying may? Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you, Henry. Yeah, if you see a problem, it allows you to kick it off.

I've got a question. It talks about minor subdivisions having to demonstrate adequate infrastructure. Major subdivisions don't have to do that or is that somewhere else?

They do have to do that. But they have to follow the minor, the major subdivisions have to follow the minor subdivision criteria and additionally the ones that are listed above.

They don't have the same criteria, do they? Major and minor?

He's asking if the minor criteria fit with the major criteria, or if major still has to follow the same criteria.

Does major not have its own criteria?

It does, but it has additional. It has more.

I'm just saying it's already outlined, correct? Okay. So major should just follow the major's criteria that are outlined in it.

Yeah. You might either duplicate the language or move that language to major and note that minor follows the same requirement.

Yeah, I didn't see that under major saying that it would have to follow those things.

So are we going to add that to one of the? Adequate infrastructure should go under major. Would it be like number five or something? Or somewhere in there? Where would it go then?

Around the same place where we talk about that traffic safety evaluation. That's kind of spelling out. requirements, so.

Okay. Yeah. A separate paragraph between item five point and the traffic evaluation study, something in there.

Madam Chair.

Yes, sir.

My concern from previous discussions remains that we can absolutely follow these, the intent here for the minors. and that at some point we would hit a density with minors that would be the equivalent of a major had they all been done at the same time. Does that make sense? I'm still not comfortable that we have that language in here. Do you all follow me? If somebody was going to put in 30 houses... we would require a particular look at infrastructure, or we'd require a particular look at road density type thing. But if it's done slowly over five years, we don't require that, does that make sense? And so I would like us to at least consider, I would like to ask Hannah to consider and the advisory committee to consider How do we hit a gate that makes us, you know, once you hit a particular gate of density, you know, this is, Darren's always talking about, correctly, about the, you know, some piece of data, and this is the exact kind of thing that we'd be looking for. What is the gate of density that we would look for that, sure, you've done miners up until now, But the next one is going to put you over that density for this particular road distance that's now going to require the equivalent of a major. I would be very comfortable with that. You all understand what I'm getting at?

Yeah, I do. And I think it's kind of consistent with the language we've talked about. But to my mind, that needs us to think. Develops more language and think about it. I think what this does for us Immediately is it gets away from your point that you know in five year time I can get over that Dense women yeah without having to do anything this this this one it makes it 30 year time To get to that density

And so, it stretches it out so much. I think the description of what the gates are is actually consistent with what the county was asking for us.

Right. Darren? I kind of agree with Dan in that, so we had a major that it would all go in at once. Say we were worried about a division of, say, 20 homes. This would only allow two per five-year period. So it does kind of stretch it out. It does stretch it out. But, you know, we're talking about a really long time to give the county time to plan.

All I'm thinking about is, is there a hole? I do like the two in five years. I mean, this is, but it just... It's not going to. Could be.

Could be. I second that.

Never say never.

Yeah.

Maybe a dollar store.

But how are you supposed to know? I don't know that people know that. It's one thing if a major developer comes in and, you know, they've got grandmaster plans. That's great. But.

No, I'm good. I'm good. I'm just asking.

All right. So for right now, then. The change that we would make to what Hannah has provided for us for Article 2 would be that we would add under Section 2.2 a major subdivision is shall demonstrate adequate infrastructure and meets one or more of the following criteria. So that's what we would change that.

So we're defining there very clearly what a major subdivision is.

Correct. Would that be an acceptable modification to this?

Do you want me to add all of the language about water pressure and flow for residential use, road capacity?

Yes. Adequate infrastructure and all the bullet points under it.

Okay.

Please.

Okay, so can we separate these two and approve this one first?

I think they're linked, Madam Chair. I would look at Article 4.

All right. I can do that.

It connects the other pieces.

All right. One Article 2 question. Are traffic safety evaluation and TIS adequately defined elsewhere? No. Yeah, the traffic safety evaluation is kind of outlined in this paragraph. I looked at the definitions. It talks about traffic impact study. Maybe just put a quote TIS next to it so that people can find what's being required of them. In the? In the definition section at the end. Okay.

We've added definition of traffic safety. I'm sorry, I lost you. I lost you. What are you saying?

Of course. So I'm on page 2-1, and it's talking about traffic safety evaluations. Right. And then in the next paragraph, it's talking about TISs, and I just want to make sure that it's clear to developers what's being asked of them.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you.

Yeah, so we, and in Article 4, we've defined traffic safety evaluation. But we haven't defined traffic impact study, right?

Not in Article 4, but traffic impact study is defined in the zoning ordinance definitions, Article 2. But I will add the definition to traffic impact study to Article 4 subdivision regulations and add the definition of Traffic Safety Evaluation to Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Okay.

Okay, so it looks to me, by what you have in front of me, that Article 4's changes begin in Section 4.7. Is that right?

Yes, that's the first page, yeah. Page 12 of 912. Okay. So on page 12, it outlines... what the traffic safety evaluation is and what they'll have to do. So I can just kind of read that. A traffic safety evaluation shall be required for all major subdivisions. The applicant shall provide information addressing roadway access, roadway conditions, and traffic safety concerns. Planning staff and the Planning Commission shall review the evaluation and may conduct a site visit to verify existing conditions. The traffic safety evaluation shall include the following elements. Ingress and egress review. Description of all access points, including site distance, turning movements, and safe entry and exit for passenger vehicles and heavy trucks. Roadway suitability. Description of the ability of existing roads to support construction traffic and heavy trucks. Identification of pavement condition, load bearing concerns, and any needed improvements. Construction traffic routing. Identification of preferred truck routes and safety considerations for school zones, residential areas, narrow roads, and intersections. internal circulation, description of internal subdivision roads, widths, cul-de-sacs, intersections, and emergency vehicle access, crash and safety conditions, identification of known safety hazards or crash locations within 1,000 feet of the subdivision boundary based on available information, mitigation measures, recommended improvements needed to ensure safety access, safe circulation, and adequate roadway capacity during construction and long-term use, The Planning Commission or the Planning Director may require a traffic impact study when they determine that additional analysis is necessary to evaluate roadway capacity, safety conditions, or subdivision impacts. The applicant may be required to submit an additional traffic impact study as a condition of approval when required. And so does anybody have any questions about that language before I move on?

That scratches the itch for what?

I like it.

That's a nice collection, A through F. Yeah.

And initially, the applicant will provide this information, but I think as part of the technical review and planning commission, we'll do the initial evaluation.

Exactly.

So it looks like after that you changed the lettering or the sectioning. Then there's something on the next page where you added just a word for clarity, where you added the and.

And then the next... substantive change is the certification of recording without utility signatures. And so we have discussed this before. And this plat may be recorded with or without utility provider signatures. When a plat is recorded without utility signatures, the Planning and Zoning Commission assumes no responsibility or liability for the availability adequacy or capacity of any utility service, including water, sewer, electric, gas, telecommunications, or other infrastructure. And recording of this plat does not waive, replace, or satisfy any other required agency approvals. And it's required to have the owner's signature so that they know if it is not able to have capacity, then it's not promised or it's not a guaranteed. And then...

And there's, and we're, are we putting in there that there's a place for the owner to sign? Yes. Yes. Yeah. It requires the owner's signature. Required.

For recording.

Yeah.

And then on the last page, that is the last change to Article 4. It just goes in depth about the landlocked property policy. So we had a note from the Zoneco company, and I believe we talked about this in advisory committee too, about going in-depth about the landlocked property filing process, because it wasn't in-depth before. Yeah. So the purpose of this policy is to address existing non-surveyed property that is, for all intents and purposes, landlocked and lacks the required frontage on a public right-of-way, eligibility for special recordation. The Planning Commission may allow the recording for financing purposes only of landlocked properties that cannot meet the minimum frontage requirements of this ordinance or the subdivision regulations. An applicant must submit the following to the Planning and Zoning Office. A boundary survey and plat prepared by a licensed land surveyor. Written statement describing the property's landlocked status. Evidence demonstrating that all reasonable means of acquiring frontage have been exhausted, including but not limited to attempts to purchase access, attempts to secure an easement, or documentations of negotiation with adjoining owners. Any additional information requested by staff to evaluate the request and any required reporting fees. The staff will... The staff shall review the application for completeness and accuracy. Staff may request additional information if needed to verify the property's landlocked status. And then administrative approval. The planning director may approve special recordation when the application meets the requirements of this section. Upon approval, the applicant shall pay all required recording fees and staff shall record the plat in the Boyle County Clerk's Office. And the approval criteria includes the property is legitimately landlocked and lacks legal access to a public right-of-way. The applicant has exhausted all reasonable means of acquiring adequate frontage or legal access. The request is solely for financing purposes and will not result in additional development or subdivision and the property otherwise meets the minimum requirements of this ordinance and the subdivision regulations and the special recordation will not create or worsen public safety access or emergency service issues. And additionally, if approved, the planning director shall ensure that the following certification is placed on the face of the plat by the surveyor above the owner's signature, stating, this property is approved for special recordation for financing purposes only. The property shall only be conveyed in its entirety. No further subdivision that does not eliminate the landlocked status shall be permitted. No building permit shall be issued for the placement of any additional structures until legal frontage or access is obtained. And the certification is binding on the property regardless of ownership until adequate frontage or legal access is established. The effect of approval of special recordation shall not authorize development, issuance of billing permits or subdivision, shall not create legal access, and shall not waive any requirements of this ordinance or the subdivision regulations. Approval of special recordation does not guarantee that legal access, easements, or required frontage will be obtained or will be obtainable in the future, and non-conforming lot status for all intents and purposes, a landlocked parcel, approved for special recordation shall be considered a nonconforming lots of record.

Do we get a lot of these? No. But we have somebody on the commission that owns them.

Really? Yes. That's funny.

Can't subsection D under H, can't that just start with does not guarantee since you're just repeating the approval of special recordation?

You said D under H?

Okay.

Should I just delete H altogether? Okay. Yep.

And do we want, in your note about the required plat certificate and the language that's there, do we want also the owner to sign that as well, acknowledging that?

Yeah, I can add that.

I think that would make sense. Mm-hmm. to make sure that we're covering ourselves legally.

I'll add that language.

Okay. Follow-up on Commissioner Smothers. I think the suggestion was removing the words approval of special recordation where these others shall not, shall not, shall not. That would be does not. But you said deletion of all of H. Yes. Is all of that duplicated elsewhere?

I believe it is duplicated in the... APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, MAYBE THE APPROVAL CRITERIA ON F?

I MYSELF LIKE IT FINE, EXCEPT FOR THE RECOMMENDED CHANGE THAT LEON SUGGESTED.

I DON'T THINK IT HURTS TO INCLUDE H WITH HIS SUGGESTION.

I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT HIS SUGGESTION WAS DELETE ALL OF H. NO, JUST THOSE FIRST FEW WORDS.

OKAY, GOTCHA.