We come to order. We don't have any minutes this time to consider, so we'll ask for postponements or withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, my name is, uh, Bob Cornette. I'm with The Roberts Group. Uh, we're asking for a postponement of the Miller Bird Development, which is, uh, DP2009. What page are you on, sir? I'm sorry, I was sitting there daydreaming and didn't look at the number. Page eight. Page eight? Page eight, item D. DP2009-60. We're asking for a one-month postponement. Okay, sir. Mr. Salley, you have a date for that? Yes, sir. That is your meeting on October the 8th, four weeks from today. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to object to this postponement? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for postponement of DP2009-60 for one month until 10/08/09. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you, all. I messed up already. All right, I'll ask you to make the motions. Go ahead, Rory. Go right ahead. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Rory Keely with EA Partners. On page six, item M, this is Plan 2005-169F Clark Property Unit 1E. I got it recorded yesterday, so we can have it withdrawn from the agenda. So you want withdrawal? Yes. Page six, item M, Park Property Unit 1E Deerhaven Road Lane. Do we need, do we need a motion for withdrawal? Chairman, it has been- Sure. ... conditions practiced. Mr. Keeley, did you say that you got it recorded yesterday? Yes, my deadline to expire was yesterday, so we did this just in case. Take care of it. Good job. Thanks. Chair will entertain a motion to withdraw. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move, um, for withdrawal of Plan 2005-169F Clark Property Unit 1E. Second. Motion been made and seconded. I've been instructed to vote on the machine, so all in favor, please vote. What do we do, Carol? Just give it to them. Motion carries. Thank you. Go back to work. We did it. Any mo- any other withdrawals, postponements, or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, staff does have an item to bring to your attention. All right, Joe. On the top of page three, item C, Plan 2009-74F, the Harold R. Black Property, we did receive an email communication from the applicant's engineer requesting a one-month postponement. Okay. And that's the October- 8th. 8th date. Okay. Chair will entertain a motion for one-month postponement for Plan 2009-74. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to oppose this motion? Okay, Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move for, um, one-month postponement of Plan 2009-74F, the Herald R. Black Property Amended. Motion been made and seconded. Will you vote, please? Thank you. Okay. Motion carries. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay. So we'll go to the no discussion items. Any of those? Mr. Chairman, there are a number of items that qualify for no discussion. They appear on your consent agenda today. Before going over those items, I would tell you that, uh, the commission's fairly recent bylaw amendment earlier this summer has greatly impacted, uh, the number of items on your consent agenda. There are several items, as you'll see, as I review them with you, that are requested either for reapproval or for extensions that have been originally approved by the commission over the last three years, that were not reviewed last week by the subdivision committee. The first item on your consent agenda appears on your meeting agenda on page three, item D. This is an amended final record plat, Plan 2009-94F Woodward Lander Property, Unit 1A, Section 1, Lot 108 Amended. This is a amended plat for property at 3117 through 3125 Daley Place. The next item on your consent agenda is the following item on your meeting agenda, Plan 2009-95F, Angliana Subdivision and AG McGregor Subdivision. This is plat- ... is for property at 520 and 534 Angliana Avenue. The next item on your consent agenda is Page Three, Item F of your meeting agenda, Plan 2009-96F, Guest Property, Unit 11B. This is for property located on Bulrush Trace. The next item on your consent agenda appears on Page Four, Item G of your meeting agenda. This is Plan 2009-97, an amended final record plat for Bluegrass Executive Park, Lots 4A and 4B. This involves property at 2240 Executive Drive. All four of these items have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The next two items on your consent agenda are recommended for reapproval by the staff and were originally approved by the commission over the last three years. The first item appears on Page Four, Item I of your meeting agenda, Plan 2008-77F, East Bridgeford Land and Development Company, also known as Kingston Hall, Phase 1, Unit 2. This involves property at 2356 Newtown Pike. The next item on your consent agenda appears on Page Six, Item K of your meeting agenda, Plan 2008-42F, Victory Lutheran Church. This involves property at 1420 Todds Road and 2835 Ruidoso Drive. The next three items on your consent agenda are recommended for approval of a one-year extension by the staff. The first appears on Page Six, Item N of your meeting agenda, Plan 2007-156F, Clark Property, Unit 1M. This subdivision involves property at Polo Club Boulevard and Icehouse Way. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, Page Seven, Item O. This is Plan 2008-24F, Thomas Communications Incorporated, Unit 1C, also known as Walnut Grove Estates. This is for property at 2236 Walnut Grove, a portion of that address. Next item on your meeting agenda is also on your consent agenda. It is also a subdivision for Thomas Communications Incorporated. This would be Unit 1D. It is Plan 2008-25F, also known as Walnut Grove Estates and also having an address being a portion of 2236 Walnut Grove. There are three items remaining on your consent agenda that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on Page Seven, Item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2009-34, an amended final development plan for Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1, a portion of that development for property at 3100 Beaumont Center Circle. The next item on your meeting agenda, Page Eight, Item B, is also on the consent agenda, DP 2009-56, Guest Property, Unit 7, located at 950 Childsburg Road. On Page Eight, Item C of your meeting agenda, this item is on the consent agenda, DP 2009-59, Deerfield Unit One, Lots 35 and 36 for property located at 140 and 144 Southland Drive. Turning to Page Two of your consent agenda, the first item listed has been postponed by the applicant. The remaining item on your consent agenda has been recommended for reapproval by the staff. It appears on Page Nine, Item E of your meeting agenda. This would be DP 2007-56, Victory Lutheran Church property involving tract at 1420 Todds Road. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, this is a lengthy consent agenda, especially compared to the, uh, subdivision committee meeting of just a little over an hour in nature last week. And at this time, items can be considered for removal from the consent agenda, either by the planning commission, uh, by any member of the audience, or by an applicant. Thank you. Are there any persons in the audience that wanna pull any of these off, Rory? I knew better than to ask that. I think I can do that. Pressure. Um, yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have, uh, under Items Four, the final development plans, uh, the Beaumont Farm, Unit One, Section One. That's DP 2009-34. I'd like to have that discussed. That's on Page Four. Um, No, Page Seven. Okay. Thanks. I'm sorry. It was the- the development plan for- So we're gonna pull DP2009-34 off and have a hearing. And, and discuss it, yes. Okay. Is that it? That's it. Thank you. Any other member of the audience have one they wanna pull off? How about the Planning Commission, anybody in the Planning Commission have one that they wanna hear? If not, then, uh, the chair will entertain a motion that we accept the, uh, consent- I move it. ... agenda. Is there a second? Second. They hurtin'. All righty, guess you need to vote on it. All in favor? Motion carries, thank you. Before we go any further, I've been remiss, I wanna introduce our new, our newest member of the Planning Commission. He's, uh, newly installed down there between Patrick and Marie. Mr. Bill Wilson, I've got, witnessed his swearing in. I can attest that he didn't fight a duel or serve as a second. So Mr. Wilson, we're glad to have you, and, uh, glad to have you part of our, part of our, part of our team. All right. Mr. Chairman, we'll be ready to proceed with the remaining items on your meeting agenda for full discussion and consideration in just a few moments. All right, sir. Thank you. Thank you. That's the biggest consent agenda- I've never seen one like... That's great. That's doing what it's supposed to do. Okay, I thought he said he had the same. Okay. ............................ Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'd like to direct your attention to the first item on your agenda today, on page one. Under Preliminary Plans, it is Plan 2006-75P, Patch and Wilkes, Unit 2B. This is a plan that has been brought to you today for a reapproval. It has been before you on three other occasions, its original approval, and then it was reapproved twice before, in May of '07 and in August of '08. Now, this is a preliminary plan. It is located in Patch and Wilkes Development. Here, we have... Tom, I don't believe we can hear you. There we go. Now you got me. Still can't. I bet you could hear me without this, though. It is a preliminary subdivision plan in the Patch and Wilkes Development. Winchester Road is here. This development is off Charleston Drive to the north, in the back of the development, near Crawford Junior High. This is the location of this subdivision. It is a 143-unit subdivision. It is consistent with the neo-traditional style that was proposed for Patch and Wilkes. The reason it is before you today for reapproval and not on your consent agenda is its age, number one. As you're aware, it was originally approved in '06. And secondly, because there is a waiver request. The waiver request on this plan was also approved by this body on, at its previous meetings. The waiver request addresses the turning radius in the alleys and the street system. And it was requested in order to maintain consistency with this plan's overall design for the neo-traditional layout for the entire development. And it is consistent with what was previously approved on another unit. Staff recommends reapproval of this plan, and the waiver as well. You can see we handed out the report, as well as the minutes from your previous meeting. And in those minutes, you can see that, again, the plan was recommended for reapproval. This body did reapprove it. There are conditions attached to the waiver. The applicant has accepted those conditions previously. And again, we would recommend approval of that, of this plan, subject to those conditions on your agenda, as well as the conditions in the waiver. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Rory? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Uh, we're in agreement with the conditions listed and request approval. All right, sir. Any questions for Mr. Kaley? If not, thank you, sir. Mm-hmm. Anybody in the audience wanna speak to this? All right. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2006, or the reapproval of Plan 2006-75P Patch and Wilkes Unit 2B and the waiver that is accompanying it. Motion's been made to approve t- and include the waivers. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? If not, if not, vote on your machine. Andy, is your, yours not working? Okay. All right. Motion passes. All right. It's slow. On to the next one. I couldn't see... I couldn't see Craven's or Phil's either. It didn't show nothing. Oh, really? No. It's Sally. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. The next item appears on page two, item 2A of your meeting agenda. This would be plan 2008-76F, a final record plat for the Bogey Estate, Lot 1. This involves property at 5846 Old Richmond Road. As you can tell from the agenda, this item has been postponed for almost 15 months. It was initially filed in the summer of last year, uh, and it has been recommended for postponement by your subdivision committee. It has been discussed at that committee at least twice, and perhaps three times, over the 15-month period, and it's probably been several months since this plan was last discussed at your subdivision committee. Mr. Martin and I have planned about a 20-minute presentation on this plat. Uh, we hope to keep it moving, keep your attention. We do have two handouts that were distributed to you prior to the start of the meeting. One is a, a petition for waiver that is on white pages with the plan number on it. Mr. Martin will cover this in a few minutes as part of his presentation. The other are marked staff exhibits for the subdivision plan for the property on Old Richmond Road. The first page of this handout is information from the files of the Division of Building Inspection, and a number of these 38 pages come from the files of that office, and they have been instrumental in the staff's review of this proposal, uh, and whether or not this proposed subdivision does meet the zoning ordinance requirements for the property. Before I review the zoning of the property with you, I would like to orient you to the location of the property that you'll be considering. Uh, we should have had the map to my right. Instead, I'd like to use the map to my left, behind just a few of you members. The location of the subject property is outside the urban service area, which is here. We are out Old Richmond Road, extending south of the urban service boundary near Delong Road at this location. The subject property is at the corner of Old Richmond Road and Jacks Creek Road, this corner right there. It is approximately a mile and a half or two miles to the southeast of the urban service area. I do have a photo to show you of some of the improvements on the property. This information is also germane to the subdivision plat that's before you today. We have an aerial photo of this, most of the subject property, which is 14 acres. This is looking from the east to the west at the southern two-thirds of the subject property. Again, we have Old Richmond Road, this location, extending to the south along US 25. This is the intersection of Jacks Creek Road. The subject property is here, and extends off the photo in this direction. This is a two-year-old aerial photo. On the subject property, as you'll see from the first page of the staff exhibits, is an abandoned garage very close to the corner of the intersection, a single family detached house, a mobile home, a barn, this location, a number of sheds on the property, and on immediately adjoining property, another barn directly behind the mobile home and the residence. There we go. North is oriented to the top. On the second page of the staff's handout, you'll see this same information. What you're looking at on the overhead is the current zoning atlas for this 14 acres. Subject property is split zoned. A little over 10 acres is zoned AR, and around four acres is zoned B-1. On the second page of the staff handout, we have the zoning atlas from 1969. This zoning dates back to the early 1950s, long before merged government. And the su- the proposal that's before you this afternoon is, in essence, to subdivide this 14 acres generally along the zoning boundary of the parcel. Using the exhibit to my right, and again, to orient you, Old Richmond Road, Jacks Creek Road is here, house at this location, mobile home here, barn and the other sheds spread throughout the property. Proposal is, in essence, to create a subdivided lot that would be B-1 zoned, leaving a 10 acre, just over 10 acre lot zoned AR. This property is currently one tract of 14 acres in size. There are a number of zoning ordinance provisions that have been forefront on the staff's mind in reviewing this plat. Many of the 38 pages in the staff exhibit are historical and go over the zoning history of this property, in addition to the fact that this parcel's been split zoned since the 1950s. Pages three, four, and five of the staff handout, which will serve largely as my outline for the portion of my presentation, is the zoning ordinance as it was adopted in 1983. In looking that part of the ordinance over, the staff could not find where mobile homes were listed as a principal or accessory use in the zoning ordinance as far back as 25 years ago. Uh, as we proceed, you will see that, in the staff's opinion, is significant. However, on page five of the zoning ordinance, again, this is from the 1983 ordinance, which is the, the parent of the zoning ordinance we have today. In the center of that box in section 12, 10-12A, you can see that there was an exception for the first mobile home located on land used for agricultural purposes. In 1983, this was a result of recent case law that basically tied the use of one mobile home to an agricultural use elsewhere in the state. And so in 1983, when there was a, a tremendous effort to update and revise our current zoning ordinance, this was known and inserted into the ordinance to comply with that case law. A few years after, on page six of the staff handout, the owner of this property that's before you today got a location permit for a mobile home. This permit was done in 1987. The mobile home was set back 300 feet off the road, which was the zoning ordinance requirement at the time. And of interest, uh, on the top part of the application, you may see a question, "Is this the first mobile home to be located on the farm?" And the answer is yes. That is significant, again, in the staff's review. On the next few pages, I won't go over these in detail, but there is documentation from the building inspector's office that two on-site sewage systems were permitted by the Board of Health. This was information until just a few months ago the staff was not aware of. For many months of the 15 that this has been before you, the staff thought there was one septic system and this proposal involved a request to add a second one to the 14 acres. This documentation shows us that's not the case. The very first page of the staff handout shows where those septic fields are located on the property. On page 12 and 13 of the staff exhibits, these are dated early in 1995. At that time, after about one year of discussion, there was a major revision to the zoning regulations in the AR zone. Those regulations under accessory uses number 10, in the middle of page 12 that has a box around it, mobile homes were specifically listed as accessory uses in the AR zone. It had, you can see by the underlined language that was being added to the ordinance at that time. And likewise, in the section we reviewed a moment ago, 1012A, there was a deletion on page 13 that took out the exception for the first mobile home on a property. This has basically been the zoning for mobile homes in the AR zone over the last 14 years. This has been consistent with how those are treated. Shortly after that, in 1996, on page 14, there was an application for dimensional variance involving this property. I think it's fair to say that on the overhead, it's the notch, if you will, in the center of the property is what required a variance in this case. Page 14, you see the application. On page 15, the Division of Building Inspectors' response. Request was for a dimensional variance from 300 feet to 15 feet to retain a mobile home and subdivide the property. This was part of a much larger farm, as you can see on the subsequent page, number 16 in the staff's exhibit. The proposal at that time was to take a very large farm, subdivide off the front 14 acres and leave the balance of the farm. Of interest is the application that says the existing and proposed use were the same, was agricultural with residences, plural. In looking carefully then at the staff report and the minutes from the Board of Adjustment case, which begin on page 17 of the staff's exhibits, there is no mention in either the minutes or the staff report that the existing mobile home on the property was considered an accessory use. Again, this is significant to the staff's review of this subdivision proposal today. On page 22 and 23 of the staff exhibits, these are the two plats that follow the Board of Adjustment approval of that dimensional variance from 300 feet to 15 feet. On page 22, there was a non-building minor subdivision approved that severed the 14 acres from the balance of 142 acres of this property on the southwest corner. That was followed by a corrected amended plat a few months later that removed the building line on page 23 of the exhibits, did not change the geometry of the lot, reflected the split-zoning nature of the property, but did remove the 300-foot building line that had been applied to both lots. All of this is background information to the current zoning ordinance, which appears beginning on page 24, 25 through 27 that we now have before us. The AR zone allows single family dwellings and, as we reviewed a moment ago, mobile homes as accessory uses. This subdivision proposes that the existing residents will remain on the four-acre B-1 lot, and the mobile home will remain on the 10-acre AR lot. Again, that is significant when you look at, on page 25, the minimum requirement of 40 acres for lots in this zone, but more importantly, the information on page 27, which is a section of the zoning ordinance as to how non-conforming lots are regulated. This is, no doubt, a non-conforming lot. It is 14 acres in a zone that requires 40 acres for the AR portion. It is fair to say the B-1 portion does not have a minimum lot size. However, the fact that only 10 acres of this parcel is AR, it is a non-conforming lot. And as such, it may only be subdivided under this section of the ordinance on page 27. That is, Article 4-5A in the staff's opinion. That provides that where there are two or more legally constructed principal residences, in essence, upon findings that they have been used distinctly, that their utilities have been separate, they may be permitted to be subdivided. At this point, there is a section of the land subdivision regulations that is also involved in this proposed subdivision that relates directly to the waiver request that is part of this, and Mr. Martin will present that to you at this time, and then I will pick up at this point and take you through the rest of the staff's exhibits, which concludes with a revised recommendation on the last page. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the waiver request that you have before you that's been handed out and has considerable amount of paper attached to it, uh, that details the history of the request, is a request for you to grant a waiver to allow a septic tank on a lot less than 10 acres. And this goes specifically to the B-1 lot. This is the request. It is for the f- four acre proposed B-1 lot in the rural area would need you to grant this waiver to be allowed to have a septic system on the property. The initial response from the Board of Health on this request was one where they were not going to approve the request, and that was the information that we had until recently. Attached to your waiver request, there is a new letter that grants their approval of the ability to put a sewer system or a septics tank system on this property. The important aspect of that is the intent of the applicant to remove the mobile home. Mr. Salih has described to you the two principal residences, one being a mobile home, and the fact that they both have independent functioning septic systems. Now, by removing the mobile home, if the applicant so wishes to build a new home, they have options that would fall under the Board of Health approval, that being utilizing the existing system, which probably, uh, would not be adequate, but this will allow them to build a new system that would be adequate and meet the needs of the new home. As you may be aware, the Board of Health adjusts th- their, uh, septic tanks based on the number of bedrooms in a home. Eh, that's their basis and, of course, the ability of the soil and that sort of thing to work. They would, of course, have to approve any new system on this property. The applicant, furthermore, in requesting your waiver, has stated that, uh, it's a matter of hardship, and the hardship, again, relates to the- ... dual zoning that has existed on this property for quite some time, for decades. They have cited as well the septic tanks,- Yeah. ... the principal residences that I mentioned, and then the agricultural use of the property and the physical improvements over the years on the property that have associated historically with the ag use. Uh, these would include fences and driveways and that sort of thing, the improvements over the property. Staff has agreed that these are relatively singular circumstances that have come together on this property. And with that, we have recommended approval of this waiver based on the reasons provided by the applicant, which again, you will find attached to your waiver on the second page. First page will be your report. Second page will be the findings. The other attachments are the supplemental information to the waiver, including the Board of Health letter stating that their willingness to approve a septic system on this property. And with that, if there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I have one. I think it's for Mr. Salop. What's the fourth adjustment waivers are for? I'm a bit confused. Let me answer that by showing you on the plat. Back when this was 160-acre farm, the original mobile home location permit, the only information was that the mobile home would be set back more than 300 feet from Richmond Road. In addition, it was more than that dimension from the side property line and also from Jacks Creek Road. When the applicants in mid-'90s wanted to create this property boundary, that required a dimensional variance for this mobile home to be set back closer than 300 feet to that property line. So then, the mobile home was already on the property at that time. It was. It was a variance needed to subdivide more than locate the home. Ma'am. No, go ahead this time. I don't want to mess up. Um, this is for Tom, I think. Um, the, the section of the subdivision regulations that, uh, speaks to allowing a septic tank on a lot less than 10 acres in size, it, it seems that we have a situation here that is in reverse order from what is standard. Um, I wasn't around when that amendment was made to the subdivision regulations, but, you know, my experience, 25 years experience in planning and zoning activities, specifically with septic systems, would, uh, would clue me in that we're dealing with ten acre lots of record, that a ten acre lot of record may be able to get a waiver for a septic system to be located there. What we're looking at doing here is we have an existing septic system and we want to create a lot around that? No, ma'am. It is a lot of less than ten acres, and that's what the regulation speaks to directly that is attached to your report, and it says that a waiver is required for property of less than ten acres. But the septic system is existing. There are two. Yes, ma'am, there are two. They're both existing and, and we're asking would that... The waiver request is basically to condone having a septic tank on a lot that we will create with Bill's presentation, granted we approve this subdivision. Isn't it, isn't it typically in opposite order? I think typically I think that you're in a situation here where, yes, you are being asked to grant a waiver to allow this creation of this ten acre lot in the rural area and have a septic system provided. Uh, although the B-1 lot has no size requirements, it does, in fact... It's governed by this regulation of ten acres for a septic system, and that is the basis for the, the request. All right. Is it... Is it a... The, the subdivision request is for a four-acre lot with a balance of ten acres? Yes, ma'am. Okay. The AR would remain down... If you subdivide down the zone line, you'll have ten acres approximately of AR and approximately four acres of B-1. So, again, it's, it's kind of whether the glass is half empty or half full, six of one, half dozen of the other. Are we creating a four-acre lot or creating a ten-acre lot? Yes, ma'am. We're dividing... Yeah. You're subdividing. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And the end result will be ten and four- Okay. ... or four and ten. But the, the waiver request is for both of these lots- No, ma'am. ... to exist? It would be for the four-acre only, the B-1. Okay. Okay. All right. Mike? Thank you. Uh, Tom, just, just to clarify. Right now, we're talking about 14 acres? Yes. Okay. So we've got one ten-acre track and then one four-acre track? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, I've got one for you. Um, I know that there are other lots, other B-1 lots, out in the AR zone. Several. Um, my concern with this is that we are separating... We are creating non-conforming lot and separating it by the fact that's because it's zoned to B-1. Is there any other places we've done that? There has been a plat approved in the northern part of the county, Bryan Station and your station, I believe. That plat was granted a waiver as well. It has expired. Mm-hmm. And that is the only one that I can think of offhand. So to follow up on that, I don't have any problem with using the B-1 lot that's already... that's there. It's, was part of the... It's part of the 14 acres. My concern is separating that to where it can be sold off to where what you're really doing is creating a 10-acre lot that can be sold, and creating a four-acre lot that already has it done. And we're doing it along the lines of the B-1 zoning. I understand the septic tank. I was not aware of that, but I understand that. I am concerned about the precedent that we're setting by doing this. And the waiver request bothers me, because I think it just facilitates what we're trying to do. Now, that's... It, it be- it becomes an issue with the Planning Commission of is, is this precedent-setting. And I guess I've gone around to Jacob's Barn to ask you, are we setting a precedence by doing this? I believe that there are fairly unique standards along this line with the agricultural history, the frontage, and the split zoning. The fact that there's principal houses, uh, two structures- Right. ... are relatively unique. I would not say totally unique or the only circumstance that would exist, but it's... It's a fairly, uh, singular situation, and I think would be rare in the county. Lynn? Um, so, so that I'm c- I'm clear in my mind, we've got a 14-acre lot with split zoning. The B-1 zoning constitutes approximately four acres of the, of the 14. Do we not also have a zoning ordinance requirement under the AR zoning, or in, in all cases where that 14-acre lot as it exists is a non-conforming lot and can... Isn't it true that we cannot make a non-conforming situation even more non-conforming? And by subdividing that bec- there is no minimum lot size for the B-1, but there is a minimum lot size for the AR. And, and- And we would reduce that, um... Since the entirety of the lot is 14 acres, would we not be reducing that non-conformity down to 10 acres? Yes, ma'am, and that's... That was one of the aspects of Mr. Salih's presentation about that one section of the ordinance that governs non-conforming lots that does allow the separation of two principal residences. That, that goes directly to the issue you just described. The only provision in the ordinance for making an existing non-conforming lot less conforming is that found on Article 45A of the zoning ordinance, which you'll see on page 27 of the staff exhibit. And there are specific conditions that limit the Planning Commission's ability to subdivide a non-conforming lot under this circumstance. This particular section on page 27 does not, uh, tie the commission's hands in terms of the zoning of the property. It is more a section that regulates... Article 4 of the ordinance regulates non-conforming structures, non-conforming uses, and non-conforming lots. So in order to subdivide the property as is being proposed, this section will definitely apply, because you are being asked to take a 14-acre lot and turn it into 10 and four. Marie? Mr. Salih, I'm just not getting something here. Did... When was this a big piece of land? It would be prior to the subdivision plats in the packet that were recorded in the mid-1990s. It was approximately a 160-acre farm prior to that time. So mid-1990s- Mm-hmm. ... till now? In t- ten years, they've all of a sudden got a hardship when they decided to sell it all off? Well, at the time that they created the 14-acre parcel, the minimum lot size in the AR zone was only 10 acres. That was changed in the late 1990s to make the AR zone a minimum of 40 acres. And it was that decision that made the subject property before you today a non-conforming lot. It was not a result of the applicant's doing. There was a three-year period between the time they recorded the 14-acre lot until that lot became non-conforming due to a governmental change in the minimum requirements of the AR zone. Okay. But they, they still left a weird group of land there. Yes. It... I would say that is an unconventional pattern. And they did that without any regulation help. That's correct. Okay. That, that was more an applicant decision. Yeah. For the, the lotting that you're reviewing today. Which just looks like you'd cut it off there. Okay. Any further questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Salih. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If, if I may, I'd like to continue through the staff exhibits- Please do. ... and take you to the revised recommendation. Mr. Holmes' question earlier was a very good segue to where I left off at page 27 and 28. On page 28, there is another existing section of the ordinance, Article 15-3, that says, "Where yard requirements in a more restrictive zone, uh, impact your property, you must meet the higher standard of the zoning adjacent to you." With the plat that's before you, the staff has discovered that the zoning information o- on the plat is not quite correct. It does not match the information on the second page of the staff's handout. The area in question is not so much on this particular property line, which I would categorize as the west property line proposed, although it does have a very small triangle of land impacted in close proximity to the existing mobile home. It has much more of an impact adjacent to the existing house, where the staff believes that this zoning line, based on the dimensions on the second page, is within 25 feet of the existing zoning boundary. Staff believes that if this subdivision proceeds, it should follow the zoning boundary. That would be the cleanest, best scenario, if this subdivision is approved, is that the subdivision should follow the zoning boundary. There's one B-1 lot and one AR lot. If that is done, in the staff's opinion, this house will be closer than 25 feet to that property line. That is not a B-1 requirement. That is a requirement of the AR zone. But in the staff's opinion, it will require a dimensional variance from the Board of Adjustment, just as was sought in 1996 for the mobile home, a very similar situation, very similar set of circumstances, although the dimensions are totally different in that case. The next few pages are, uh, evidence that the applicant has supplied to the staff showing that the properties do have separate utilities, uh, in terms of electric, telephone, and cable. Um, this is important under 4-5 of your zoning ordinance and, actually, the staff has asked for additional information to be supplied to document that this is not just in this one instance, but is historical. Uh, the applicant, I believe, may have additional information for you on that today. The final page of the staff's handout... And I do very much appreciate your, your attention to, uh, to our lengthy presentation. I wish we could've made this shorter, but, uh, there was a lot to take you through on this proposal... Is a revised recommendation by your staff on this subdivision. As I mentioned early on, the subdivision committee recommended postponement of this proposal, uh, not in, uh, very much difference to some of the questions that have already been raised and these different sections of the ordinance and the land subdivision regulations that are involved. But basically, the staff does believe that, uh, this application can be approved under Article 4-5A of the zoning ordinance, if the planning commission grants the requested waiver and if the Board of Adjustment approves the dimensional variance from the existing structure to the proposed lot line that the staff is recommending be made instead of the plat that's before you today. On your agenda on page two, you'll see 11 conditions under the heading, "Should this plan be approved." That is the basis for the revised staff recommendation that you'll find on the last page of the staff exhibits. The staff does recommend approval of this plan with no change to the first five conditions, as they're listed on your agenda. We would ask, under condition six, that there be a correction to the B-1 and AR zoning boundary and that the property boundary be relocated to the zoning boundary. Again, that is information we believe that would be more consistent with the second page of the staff handout before you today. We believe that that should be coincident. Conditions seven, eight, and nine are fairly typical of the subdivision regulations and require no, no alteration. Uh, condition 10 is, as I've mentioned, provided that you do approve the waiver to create the four-acre lot under the 10-acre septic tank rule. And then finally, condition 11, the discussion of the dedication can be deleted because the applicant is proposing a dedication of Jack's Creek right-of-way, which will be subject to acceptance by the State Transportation Cabinet. Uh, that is covered under condition number eight, uh, pardon me, condition number nine. However, we would propose to replace number 11 with one that the Board of Adjustment, it would approve the dimensional variance for the existing house, uh, prior to the certification of this plan that would meet the other 10 conditions. Again, I thank you. At this time, uh, I and, if necessary, Mr. Martin, will be glad to answer any other questions from the commission, uh, prior to hearing from the applicant on this proposal. Bill, if you will, go over number six again for us to be sure we have that. Yes, sir. Let me orient you to the plat. The plat has a discrepancy in the staff's opinion of between 30 and 50 feet in the zoning information on this portion of the property. We believe that this line extends too far away from Jack's Creek pipe. By moving that to where we believe the zoning boundary is, it impacts the required setback of this house to this property line, which is, because it's next to AR, has to be 25 feet. That's the dimensional variance we believe that is necessary for this subdivision. And again, that's predicated on our recommendation that the property boundary be coincident with the zoning boundary. Thank you. Mr. Holmes, you're up. Yes, Bill. Um, the, the two trailers that are there, are, are, do they share one septic tank or are those separate septic tanks and do they share the same lateral fills or how is that? We don't believe so. The information in the middle of the packet seemed to indicate from building inspection that there were two separate septic fields. Also, on the very first page of the staff exhibit, what showed in gray, our identification of where the two septic fields are, and it appears clear to us that one is intended for the mobile home and one for the existing house. And they are currently on the 14-acre track, which is one of, as Mr. Martin said, one of the unique conditions in our review of this application, and one thing that the staff was not aware of until probably the last 60 or 90 days. Ms. Phillips. The, um- Before Ms. Phillips asks her question, may I make one point of clarification on Mr. Holmes? Sure. There are not two mobile homes on the property. There is one mobile home and one built-in-place residence. Ma'am? Um, when the septic permits were obtained for the mobile home and the ex- and the structure, and the, and the stick-built house, the home, the stick-built home was existing, correct? It was not new construction? These permits date to 1989. Um, the home was definitely in existence at that time. So, it was, um, acquiring a septic tank permit was a, um, a public health improvement, presumably. Presumably, or it may have been that the existing field was investigated at that time and updated information obtained. Do, do we know that information, whether there was an existing septic system that, that failed? The document on page eight seems to indicate that there was an ex- inspection on 12 September '89 of one that existed, and then shortly thereafter, on 9-22-'89, uh, there was... Pardon me, 9-28-'89, a new permit that had conditions tied to it. We believe that is the one that was done for the mobile home, because it was located about that time on the property. Okay. And another question with respect to the, um, the house's septic field. Um, the boundary, it appears from this, the plat that's on page one- Mm-hmm. ... um, that if we follow the boundary of the zoning, uh, then the septic field will still remain in the AR and will potentially be under separate ownership. Mm-hmm. Um, how commonplace is it for septic fields to be, um, on separate parcels that are not, you know, part and parcel with the, uh, intended user of that septic tank? I'm probably not qualified to give you a percentage type of answer to that. I have heard of this situation existing before, and I think it's fair to, to deduce that probably the smaller the piece of land involved in the rural area, the more likely this situation would be. I have seen plats in the rural area, uh, over the years where these types of drain fields extending across property lines are easemented, and if they remain in essence in these locations, that would be our expectation for this as well. Well, from personal experience, having had a septic tank that failed and having had to dig up drain lines and replace them, I don't think it's a really good idea to have septic drain lines and a septic system on a separate parcel. Um, it makes for bad neighbors, and, um, legally, it's probably not the best plan that we could execute. Understood. Ms. Copeland? Mr. Salley, I was looking at the proof of ownership of two separate utilities. Mm-hmm. And one's dated 8-17-'09. Mm-hmm. Another one's dated, uh... Oh, let's see here, 7-19-'09. Mm-hmm. And then that brings me to... That was just last year, and then I was looking at, um, on the back page here, we first heard this case 9-10-'09. So, doesn't it stand to reason that they'd run out and get separate utilities 'cause their attorney told them, "We need separate utilities to make this stand as two separate residences?" But also, it brings to mind that this was probably the first or second meeting that I ever attended as a, um, commissioner. Mm-hmm. So, to say I was green is an understatement, and today I'm being hit with it again, and there's two other people here who've never heard of Bogey, so why are we all of a sudden skipping committee for hearing all of this information, being able to digest it, and having some o- o- our feet on the ground while we look at this? Why are we getting slammed with this today? It's an excellent question. And could we hear the information and not vote on it? And I'm not s- putting that forth as a motion. I'm just saying this is a lot- Mm-hmm. ... to swallow in one pill. I understand. That's a very good question. I think the answer, the basic answer to your question appears on page two of the agenda, where you look at this particular plan. Oh. Um, you will see that, uh, under item 2A in the middle of that line, there is a date that appears that is today's date. Under- ... the subdivision regulations and perhaps your bylaws, I'm not certain of the bylaws, the commission has a limited amount of time to consider all applications. Without the consent of the applicant, the commission does not have the ability to postpone this matter further. Uh, in speaking with the applicant's representatives earlier this week, we understood they wanted this item presented today. So they are whamming us. Well, th- your particular regulations- Not the staff. ... only allow the commission 90 days to review the application. Because it has been postponed- Oh. ... so many times, that time period has expired. Which they were fully aware of, and so they have backed us into a corner with all this information today. But- I do not think that's nice manners. If, if, if, if I might, I think we probably ought to at least go through and hear the petitioner's remarks, and then after that, if you decide you want to do something different, we'll have the opportunity to do that. But I, I think we've started down this road, and we're gonna have to at least- Okay. ... go through with it because of the, because of what Mr. Sally referred to, is that we have a drop-dead date. We have to hear it, and they have chosen to postpone, and, and we can deal with that a little later on down the road. Mr. Brewer. Yeah, quick question. Is this ... This hook coming off the main residence there, is that a driveway that's now gonna be on this separate parcel? It is. It actually will traverse both parcels. The existing access point is on the AR piece, curves in front of the mobile home, and then ends up behind the residence. We would expect that to be designated as an access easement. Yeah. That answer your question, Mr. Brewer? Mr. Owens? Yes, thank you. Um, real quick, Bill, it was mentioned as far as other B1 property in AR zone. Uh-huh. Uh, I didn't hear a number. Do we have a number as to what other B1 property, uh, similar situations would be in an AR zone? I think I have a little more confidence in a number answer than I did to Ms. Phillips' question earlier. There are a f- a few more than 20, um, business zoned areas that date back as distant as this area in the rural service area. Some of them, uh, currently are coincident. Thank you. We have a drawing we can put on the overhead to show you. Some of them, I have no doubt, involve split zone properties like you're looking at today. I don't believe that all of them do. Some of them probably involve multiple properties around rural settlements or may have a, a, a few smaller parcels that all had a larger area of B1 or other business zoning. Uh, I believe they all are B1, the, the ... No, that's not correct. At Georgetown Road, those three you see are B3 for the most part. Yeah. Uh, the m- majority of the remainder are B1 zoning like you're looking at today. These areas date back to the 1950s when Fayette County first adopted zoning regulations. Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you, Mr.- Thank you very much. Commissioner. Okay. Second now - Yeah. Go for that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I represent the applicant, or Jeff Taylor on this, uh, application. Uh, we do ... Rory, do you have the sign and the picture? Rory Kaley is with EA Partners, our designer, who is the, the notification sign that we're required to do in the rural areas. As you know, this has to be posted with a sign. We just put that in the record to show you that that has been, um, uh, done and filed. And, uh, Chaz Hyde, who works with me, is passing out some exhibits I have. Uh, Jeff Taylor is with me in the third row, and, uh, Jeff's my client. I'll talk about him in a minute. Uh, Ralph Rochelle is with us. Ralph is a friend of Jeff's and an advisor on this. Um, and we're requesting you to subdivide a split zone lot into two tracts. And I've heard a lot of questions, and, and I know there's some things the staff hasn't gotten into, and I can give you a lot of background on that. We've been working on this for 13 months. It, um, I've, I know there was some discussion about our manners, and the ... Our, our concern was that people were getting upset at us that we had postponed it so many times and wanted to get this heard. We've been to the subdivision committee at least twice for discussion of this. Uh, we've worked with the staff. We've worked with the health department. We've worked with the Fayette Alliance. We've worked with the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association. So I want to give you some background on this, and I ... If, if you all want to postpone it, we're happy to. We don't ever want to ram anything down the throats of the planning commission. That is not our goal. As I said, I've, I've felt pressure because it seemed like we were gonna get the world record for number of postponements for a case here. I think there's 13 or 14 on your agenda, and we didn't want to overly postpone this. But after I'm finished, if you want to postpone it, that's certainly your prerogative. And we don't want to, uh, force a decision on anything you all don't want. Yes, it is up to us. We, we can say we will not agree to a postponement, but if that's what you want to do, we'll agree to it. But I, I do hope you'll hear what I have to say and hear the explanation that we have for you before we do that. This is a ... It's an interesting case. Um, I didn't ... I wasn't involved originally because my client thought it was a simple request, and it- ... it's a- it still is a simple request, but it turns out to be a very complicated procedure. Um, what Jeff is a... Could you hand these to the... Operator. Yeah. Jeff is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Architecture. I do have to say that he's not a licensed architect, 'cause he hasn't gone through the three-year apprenticeship p- program required, but he's a graduate of the College of Architecture. He has a home- he's built homes, and his- his dream, his goal, is to build a home out here. The picture I'm showing you is the existing house on the lot, which is located right here on the property, and then I've got a second picture of that a little closer up just so you can see it. If you could show the second picture there. That's the side or rear of the lot. That's- that's brick there and I don't think it shows up there. And the third, this is the mobile home on the property that we want to replace, and then the last picture is the rear or side of the mobile home there that we want to replace. If you could show the last... There's- there's another view of the mobile home. Jeff wants to remove that mobile home and build a house on this property. Jeff is the son-in-law of the owner of the property. The owner is Dana Bogey Strain. Ms. Strain is the daughter of the original owner, Mr. and Mrs. Bogey, on the property, and Jeff is their son-in-law, is- is Dana Str- Dana Bogey Strain's son-in-law. He wants to build a house next to his mother-in-law's house out here. It's not gonna be a mansion. It's gonna be a modest three-bedroom home out there. And- and we've had a lot of discussions with people on this, the Fayette Alliance and the Old Richmond Road Association, and no one has ever voiced any objection to getting rid of that mobile home and building a house there. They've all viewed that as a positive improvement for this area. The question is how do we do that? And also a question is there's been a lot of concern about the use of that B-1 property. We've got four acres of B-1 there. If you know the size of a- a typical Thornton's or Shellmart, that's about one acre. We got four acres out there which has some potential big uses for B-1 use out there, so that's gonna factor into what I'm gonna talk to you about a little bit too. The- a couple other miscellaneous things I wanna talk about while my mind's on and while questions- questions have come up. One up in B-1, under the zoning ordinance, there's no minimum lot size requirement, so a four-acre B-1 lot meets the lot size requirement for the zoning ordinance. Doesn't meet it for- for a septic tank, but it meets it for the zoning ordinance. A 10-acre lot for AR meets the lot size requirement for a septic tank. Now, we are not requesting any change in the amount of land zoned B-1 or the amount of land zoned AR. They will stay exactly the same, so we're not making any, the zones more or less conforming. Um, the- the soil out here, there's never been a problem with the septic tanks, and I want to repeat that, in that we- we know of no problem... We know of no problem ever with the septic tanks on this property. The health department has told us, as a matter of fact, this is some of the best soil for septic purposes in the county. It works real well. They found no problems with the two existing septic tanks on the property. There's one septic for the house, there's one septic for the mobile home on this. Uh, so we are located, of course, at Old Richmond Road here and Jacks Creek Pike. Not sure the staff mentioned there's a landmark right across Jacks Creek Pike from us, what I call, we used to call the Judy Ray Store. And it doesn't have that name anymore, they've changed the name, but everybody always still calls it the Judy Ray Store. So the Judy Ray Store is B-1 and located right across Jacks Creek Pike from us. Our property, if you've been out there, there's a little old concrete block building right up near the intersection. That was a service station back in bygone years. It was just, it's right close to the road, it's one of these things you could- you could take a 10 feet or 15-foot tr- trip off the road and you're at the pumps right there, and then you could move on. So there was a past history of commercial use on the property as a service station. That's one reason it's zoned B-1. I call it the Cross Roads Commercial out in the r- rural area, because it had commercial uses on it. Um, the, uh, as I said, the house is located on the B-1 portion and the mobile home's on the AR portion. We do have an irregular shape, and that was created on the plat. That's because the plat followed the fence lines and the roads that were out there. When the person bought the property behind, they just want, they... You're buying fields. I want this field, I want this field, I want this field. So, they subdivided off on fields, and that's- that's how it was, it follows the fence lines. Um, the, uh, as I said, Jeff, the son-in-law of Ms. Strain, wants to build his house out there, wants to live out there. Now, this has been postponed 13 or 14 times, and I wanna tell you a little bit what we've been doing. We haven't been sit- just sitting around doing nothing, uh, during that time. We've been active on it, but most of the postponements was because after we filed this, we had some concern expressed by the Fayette Alliance and the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association. As you know, the Fayette Alliance is a umbrella group representing people over, all over the county, especially concerned about rural preservation. ... Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association is an extremely active neighborhood association in this area and was concerned about this. Now, we met with Jim Hodge, who's the attorney for the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association and the Fayette Alliance a number of times to work this out. It took us some time to do that because his organizations only have board meetings once every couple months, so we talked to him and make an offer, and then we'd hear six weeks later and we'd have to get back and we'd have to postpone it, and that sort of thing. And, but they were concerned not about replacing the mobile home with a house, but they were concerned, I think rightfully so, since we're subdividing off the B-1 part, they said, "Well, something must be happening on the B-1. You must have some commercial use you want to get in here." And they were very concerned about it, 'cause as you know, B-1 allows a lo- big range of uses and could potentially have some impact on the neighborhood. Now, first, we told them, "No, our goal is to put a house on here." At the same time, Ms. Strain, the owner of the property, did not want to give up B-1 zoning because, as people get my age and things, people think about retirement and what their property's worth and all that sort of thing. They didn't want, she didn't wanna reduce the, the value of her property, for whatever that, good or, for good or bad. The, um, but the, the Fayette Alliance and the Rich- Old Richmond Road Association were very concerned about the uses we would put on that property. So we went through a negotiation procedure, and what we have done is we've come up with a very detailed deed of restrictions, a restrictive covenant that will be placed on this property that essentially has eliminated three-quarters of the B-1 uses that we would be allowed to make on this property. And this isn't real, this is a agreement between us and the Fayette Alliance and the Old Richmond Road Association, so it's not technically part of what's in front of you, but I need to tell you about that so you know what's going on. The, the covenant we've agreed to is very detailed. It goes into what we can and can't do on the property, limits down the uses of what we're allowed. It goes into open space, landscape buffers, hours of operation of whatever might go in here in the future, uh, height of the building, what the bi- building materials are gonna be, what the lighting is gonna be, what the roof pitch'll be on the buildings that could go on the property, both the AR portion and the B-1 port- portion. It prohibits us from ever subdividing this property again is one of the things it does. Now, what the status of that is my clients have signed the deed restriction and delivered it to Mr. Hodge. So, our agreement is that if you approve this, he will then automatically take this to get it recorded. If you don't approve it, then it gets ripped up and we still have the full use of the B-1 uses in this area. Another thing to keep in mind is, what could we do on this property without coming, without subdividing the property? It's zone B-1, and as you all know, um, a commercial use could go in here, go into the building inspection and getting a building permit as long as it's one building. If it's more than one building, we would have to come back to you and get a development plan approved for it. We'd also have to get the, uh, septic system ... You wouldn't have to approve it, 'cause it's already on 10 acres, but the Health Department would have to approve it for our septic system if we were to come on here and develop this without a subdivision plat. So, we de- we discussed this with the Fayette Alliance and Old Richmond Road. They knew what we, is possible to do without coming before you. They know, know the magnitude of development that could go on here without coming before you. So this truly ou- worked out to a win-win situation for the Association and us. As I look at it, and I can't speak for the Fayette Alliance and the Old Richmond Road, but what they won was significant extreme restrictions on what we can do on the B-1 property here. What we got, we got the ability for Jeff to build a house on this property, which is what he wants to do. And that's important, as you know, in as far as getting a mortgage to build a house, you have to have one house on one lot in order to get a mortgage to finance it and to have good title to it. So that's some of the background and some of the reason we postponed this thing 13 times. The other reason is Health Department approval. The, usually, you get your plat approved, and then you go to the Health Department to get septic approved, uh, here. The staff wanted to see our Health Department approval before we came to you, so we've worked with the Health Department as well. In my handout, if I can find, here's my copy of the handout. The, uh, I numbered my pages on the lower right-hand corner. The first page is a, is a letter from Jim Hodge, who's the attorney for the Old Richmond Road Association and Fayette Alliance, where he mentions our discussion and he said, "This is to advise that ORR," Old Richmond Road, "and Fayette Alliance do not object, do not object to the approval of the plat dividing the property into two lots, one containing 10.03 acres more or less, and the other containing 4.01 acres more or less." So that's their letter, but getting to the Health Department on page two to page six, I have the correspondence that went between us at the Health Department. They have their Regulation 17- ... which prohibits septic tanks on lots less than a 10- 10 acre tract. Much, which parallels your regulation about septic tanks on a 10 acre tract and the subdivision regulations. They were put in about the same time. The health department looked over, looked at it and reviewed it. The plans and especially in the fact that we have a unique circumstance here, that we already have two residences, albeit one's a mobile home, but two residences and two septic fields on this property. That they felt that this was not resulting in further development of the property and that they could approve this. And the letter at page two is the approval letter from the health department. The letter, the letter at page three to four is from the health department's attorneys who had looked it over before the health department rule saying that they had the legal authority to grant this. And page five to six is just my letter to the health department asking for the approval, th- their approval of the septic system. As I mentioned in discussions, they said that this is good soil, this works well. We don't have any record of any malfunctions ever out there for the, for the septic systems as well. Now, um, that, yet gives you some background as to how we come here today. So, um, as we stand here before you, we've, we've dealt... We've had very positive meetings and outcome with the Fayette Alliance, with the Old Richmond Road Association and with the health department. And now we are before you because we have to get your approval too, on this. And the... We do feel that we qualify for a waiver, but before I discuss the waiver, I do want to discuss the, what Bill mentioned, the article or section 4-5A of the subdivision regulations. Now, he didn't mention this, but I know Chris King has already, always called this section the Zach Carter section of the subdivision regulations. And that is because back in the '70s, there was a man named Zach Carter here who owned a lot of rental property in Lexington. And as he got older or died and his estate owned the property, he or the estate wanted to sell the houses that he rented out to the people that had been renting them for years. And Planning Commission started getting plats coming in of these lots that we had two or three houses on them, but were single lots. And the lots did not meet the lot size requirements of the zone they were in. And to subdivide them would have resulted in lowering the lot size in the zone they were in. And the planning commi- your predecessors on the Planning Commission had a dilemma. Well, what do we do? You know, it's a, it's a positive thing to allow these people who've been renting to own their homes, but we can't. We're prohibited by the ordinance from doing it. Well, that's why this ordinance was passed, to deal with situations in which there are two or more existing residences on a lot, that it is desirable to separate in order that the people can own those, but that would technically result in lots being lower than the size allowed in the zone they're in. And, um, in passing that ordinance, the Planning Commission put a few test- They wanted to be convinced that this was a longstanding arrangement. And I know we had a question about, well, could the lawyer, I guess me, have advised the client to go out and switch the utilities in the meantime, while this is delayed? Well, I guess that's a logical question. Um, I don't do things like that, but in any case, the, um, I got those utility information to the staff to show it's separate utilities and then the staff this morning asked, "Well, do you have anything going..." Excuse me. "Going further back so we can show that it's been that way for a long time?" And we're scrambling around and like most people, Ms. Strain told me, she said, "Well, I toss those things. I don't, I don't save my old utility bills. I toss those." We got, um, we did... I've got an affidavit from her and we'll get further informa- I do have a little bit of information from KU. They checked their files going back to 2007 and showed that there was a separate account for the trailer in 2007. I know people probably want to go back further on that. I've got an affidavit, which if you want it ... ?Ms. Strain now does say that in this affidavit says... I don't know if you can read that. "I'm the owner of the property located at 54..." Excuse me. "5846 Old Richmond Road. The mobile home on the property was placed there around 1989. The mobile home has always had separate electricity and separate cable television utility service. It also had separate telephone landline service until the time that the resident decided to use only a cell phone," which a lot of people are doing these days. Now, I will tell you, I've checked this out. The... There's no natural gas service out there. The house has propane. The mobile home is heated. It's all electric. The water is on one meter, which is not unusual in the real rural area because I've done, I've done some work with people who want to get service from the water company. The water company only allows one meter to come off and I've had cases where in Fayette County, whole streets were on one- ... meter with a water company. And, uh, so that's sort of the way I've worked down... I've done that over in the southeast part of the county. I've done it on... for... worked for horse farms on Old Frankfurt and Yarleton Road, in which many, many customers are located on one private line. And they all have different ways of dealing with that. Some say, "Okay, well you... if there's five of us, you have a fifth, you have a fifth, you have a fifth." And the other would say, "Well, you use a lot more so you pay 30%, I'll pay 15," and all that sort of thing. But that... so that's not unusual. But they always have separate electric, separate cable and I said... as I said, separate telephone, until they switched over to cell phone use on that. And staff has taught... asked me about getting information to them about that later on. We'd be happy to do that. We were just un- unable to do that in the last two hours. I'll put something in the record from KU, where they did confirm that the... Back in 2007, there was a separate account for the trailer, which I think will show that at least they have not done this in the last two years. And we've only had this pending for 14 months on that. So this was not something that was done in order to create a case for you all. Um, the, um, um, section 45A, there's a staff mention to you, says that these have to be separate and distinct matters. And ou- and the utility bills are one things you look at. Another thing I would mention is sewer is a utility. And of course, these have separate septic systems, as we've talked about well, so another indication that these are separate and distinct. Um, and I think the goal in that section is to assure that this will not be a, uh, detriment to the neighborhood or a, a negative issue for the neighborhood. And I think we've shown you that. I think the, the, uh, evidence shows that by replacing this with a... replacing the mobile home with a house, we are certainly not resulting in a, uh, detriment to the neighborhood. We think we're improving the neighborhood and a lot of people that... in the area have told us that. As far as the waiver goes, we are asking for a waiver of the 10-acre lot size for a septic tank. And of course, that is section 66A of the subdivision regulations, which has been waived in the past as, as we get farther and farther away from the time when the 10-acre lot was put into effect and the 40-acre lot size was put into effect, you get fewer and fewer of these. I... as many of you know, I was... had the pleasure of being the city attorney in Rochelle's shoes from 1976 to 1982. And during that time, there were many, many requests for waivers of this for people who were caught in situations resulting from the changeover to the 10-acre lot size. So it's, it's not unusual. Uh, again, it says you can postpone action until the developer has obtained approval of the health department, which we voluntarily did postpone it and got approval of the health department. Um, we have to get a septic tank permit before we can get a building permit for the house, which we understand. And the, uh, um, the reasons for granting a waiver are hardship on the property. And we think we do meet the hardship test as the staff has recommended to you. Um, one reason is that we're split zoned. Another reason that we are irregularly shaped, and yes, I guess previous planning did create the irregular shape. But as I said, we did follow the fence line and the driveway lines of the property to do that. We already have two functioning septic tank systems on the 14 acres, um, and it will result in a hardship to the applicant by not being able to construct a house on this property as opposed to the mobile home on the property. And I think it's important for instance, in this case, when you have family there, it's important to allow your family to live in a house as opposed to live in a mobile home. Um, and again, you have to find that this will not impair the character of the area. We certainly don't think it will impair the character of the area, just, just based on what's in front of you. You don't technically have before you the restrictions we've agreed to with the Fayette Alliance or the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association, which I think resulted in a great improvement in the neighborhood. But even without that, just the mere fact that we're able to remove a mobile home and replace it with a modest house, I think is a definite improvement in the neighborhood. The, um, uh, so we think that we're eligible for the waiver. We think that we qualify for the Zach Carter, uh, provision about dividing lots that have existing residences on them. As the staff had mentioned, under that section, we have to have had a principal use all along. And as the staff mentioned during... from the period of 1983 to 1985... excuse me, 1995, the mobile home was a principal use on the lot. And once it's principal, it use... it retains that use nonconforming wise. So we meet that requirement. In 1995, the staff... the ordinance was amended to make a mobile home a... an accessory use in the RAAR zone. So after '95, mobile homes going in there would lose that ability, uh, to u- to utilize that ordinance. And we put in the minutes from the Board of Adjustment action just to show you that... ... the board had looked at this mobile home in 1996, and it's not really significant that they were getting a variance at that point, but I put it in there to show you that the mobile home was legal at that point, that they had looked it over. They don't grant variances to things that are not legal. So it was, it was legal back in 1996. Um, need to discuss just a little bit, there's, there's, you know, have we ever done this before and that sort of thing, precedent and that sort of thing. I don't, I think there is precedent for doing this. As I mentioned, after the lot sizes were required, there were a lot of these things coming through the planning commission for a few years. You have a few of them now, but it wasn't at all unusual to do this. Ah, the, I do have in my packet the one that the staff mentioned to you, page 11, page 12 and 13 and 14 are the minutes of that. Back in 2004, you all had before you a plat for property out at Bryan Station and Muir Station Road, six acres, a little under six acres, split zoned AR and B1.1 My understanding of that property, there was no buildings on the property at all. Planning commission approved a plat creating four B1 lots and one AR lot on that, and this commission granted the waiver to the 10-acre lot size for the septic tanks, uh, 'cause it was zoned B1. Now, I'm not saying you'd have to grant that today or whatever. We have a different circumstance. Unlike that property that you all approved in 2004, we have two residences on here that had nothing on the property at that point. We have two residences on the property, and all we're asking to do is have two residences on the property, but be able to have one as a conventionally built three-bedroom house, as opposed to a mobile home on the property. As I see it, part of the problem we have in Fayette County is that you, once you have a mobile home, you have to keep it, because you can't, uh, in general, generally, you can't change it out, because they're non-conforming. We have a situation where we do have a principal, what was a principal use mobile home, and we are unusual, because we do qualify for the Zach Carter ordinance in that we have two existing houses and we're trying to separate these lots so they can be an individual ownership. Another example you all have, probably familiar with this, Elim Village. It's out, if you go out Winchester Road, it's on the right. I can't remember if it's before or after you get to Bryant Road or Man O' War Boulevard. That was built back in the '50s or '60s, one acre, houses on one-acre lots, but they were rented out. They were never subdivided. And that's in the AR zone. They have septic tanks on them, and through the years those lots have been subdivided off into one-acre lots with septic in the AR zone where we have a 40-acre lot size now. Those have been subdivided off. And again, the planning commission, your predecessor, did the right thing, because that allowed those houses to be sold off and owned by people, uh, even though they were less than 10 or 40 acres. If they had a functioning septic system approved by the health department, they were gonna be able to b- be bought by the person living there or somebody who wants to buy the house. The planning commission did the right thing. And again, we think by approving this, you're gonna be doing the right thing as well, because again, we're not asking to increase the density in the AR area, two residences, two residences. We're not asking for another septic system in the AR area. There's two now. There'll be two after. We're not asking to do something that the health department doesn't approve. They've looked at this. They've approved it. They said we got good soil for it. Maybe in our wildest dreams we can think of what this might be a precedent for, but I can't think of what this'd be a precedent for unless you had another lot with two, a mobile home on it and a house, and the mobile home was built as a principal home when it was done, it's split zoned, um, all that sort of thing. Maybe there would be. You know, maybe you have the identical thing coming up again. If you do have the identical thing, hopefully you would approve that too, so somebody could build a house instead of having a mobile home out there. So, and I understand a septic field might be on the other property. We will grant an easement for it. Uh, I write those. I know when, uh, back when the ordinances changed, many, many people did easements for septic fields that go over lines. That's not unusual. It can be done. It c- it is enforceable. The health department will make sure that's right as well. So again, I'll, uh- Makes a lot better neighbor- ... there are a lot of questions raised. I hope I've, I've dealt with the questions you all had. Um, we do think this is a unique situation. Again, it's a, it's an example of a simple request that is, in reality, very complicated. All we want to do is build a house. We didn't come in here wanting to put a Shell Mart on the property or a Cracker Barrel or that sort of thing on the property. We just want to build a house. I think we put our money where the mouth is, our mouth is by agreeing to all the restrictions that the Fayette Alliance asked us to, and by agreeing to the restrictions of the Old Richmond Road Association. Uh, so we feel we meet the criteria. We feel you're eligible for a waiver. We feel like Elim Village and others, that it's appropriate to do it. ... uh, you're not gonna be creating either a public safety problem, a health problem, or a ... You're not gonna be lowering property values in this area at all by allowing us to take out the mobile home and replace it. So again, I, we appreciate your listening to us. If you wanna postpone this after discussing it, we'll agree to postponing it, after you all discuss it. But we, we wanted to let you all know what we've been doing. I wanna let you know that we haven't been twiddling our toes during the 13 times that we postponed this, but we've been very busy, working with our neighbors, working with the health department, working with the staff on this thing. And, uh, I think it's been worthwhile doing. I think it's, uh, it's a, it's a worthwhile, uh, to have this house on the property. And Jeff is very committed to it, um, otherwise he wouldn't have stuck it out and stayed the course trying to build a house behind his mother-in-law's house. So we appreciate it very much, and we'd be happy to answer any questions y'all might have. Are there any questions for Mr. Murphy? Marie? Um, Mr. Murphy, you've been very helpful. Uh, I have a question. Why was Mrs. Strain the source for the utility bills? Does that mean she's paying both sets of bills? Her ... Right now, the history of this is that when it went in, in '89, um, her parents were living in the house. In '89, Ms. Strain moved into the house, and the parents moved into the mobile home. So it's all been in, it's been in the family. Now they've rented it at some time to a unrelated person for a while, and now, the bill, the person living there is Ms. Strain's other daughter, not Jeff's wife but Jeff's sister-in-law is in the other, is in the mobile home. So they have, I don't, I don't, I think, I don't know who pays for it. It's a family thing, you know? Okay. So, you know. So you could say that this is a guest house rather than two residences. Uh, no, I don't think you could, because- Oh, okay. ... a guest house is defined as a house that... If you do a guest house in the AR zone, it cannot have cooking facilities. It has to be associated with the main house, has- Okay. ... to have same utilities. No cooking facilities. Can be only for guests for the property. So it does not qual- Okay. We do not qualify as a guest house under this. I mean, that is one, one thing we could look at, 'cause you can have guest houses in the AR zone. This does not qualify as a guest house. We, we came in as a mobile home. It's been rented to other people. So I understand that Ms. Strain gets the bill. She never turned over the utilit-... Um, she kept ... It's in her name now. She gives the bill to her daughter to pay. Her daughter pays it. It's- The cable bill is in the gentleman's name who lives in the mobile home as well on that. I, I, I hate to get into all these family- Okay. ... situations in front of the Planning Commission on this. And is Jeff a graduate of College of Agriculture? I mean, uh, Architecture? Yes. Okay. How long ago did he graduate? When did you graduate, Jeff? 1998. Okay. Uh, and is there a performance time? I mean, he says he wants to build, but really, what we're doing is creating two lots. That's the bottom line, whether he builds the house or not. Is there a performance for building the house or not, in your agreement with Fayette Alliance? No, they don't have a time limit under which- So he could just- ... we can build the house. ... never get around to it. He could. Yes, but what advantage would that be? Because- Well, you'd have- ... we've, we've- ... two lots. Well, we've got two lots, but we've given up most of our uses on the B1 property by, and devalued that property. Sure. If Jeff's not gonna build the, if Jeff's not gonna build the house, we're not gonna agree to these restrictions with Fayette Alliance in Old Richmond Road. I don't know. Jeff, what's your timetable in doing the house? A year. It's a year to plan it with my wife and... Jeff is saying it's gonna probably take a year to plan it with his wife and a year to build it probably. Okay. I know Jeff plans on building it. He, we wouldn't have gone through all this if he didn't plan on building it. It's a major ordeal to, to go through this process and, and, and you wouldn't do it if you weren't planning on building the house. Thank you. Mr. Owens? Uh, Mr. Murphy, uh, in your packet, and you've stated that, um, the health department has, in essence, approved a septic system for the 10 acres. Have they looked at the four acres, as far as approving a separate system for the four acres? They had looked at those, and early on, in our, in our discussion, they'd said both, both systems are working properly at the present time. Now, do, but they're approving, you know. I see you've got the statement approving a 10 acre for the house, a, a new, apparently a new 10 acre or they'll approve whatever. Have they looked at a new system for the four-acre tract, once it's separated? No, because no new system's gonna be required. Okay. I mean, I guess if we had to do a new system, we could. Yeah. We could do a new system for the- But- ... for the house. But if you choose to build on the B1 property, you would need to go there. Oh, if, if we're gonna buil-... If we're gonna add more to B1, we will have to come back through to the health department. They have not committed to approving a new se- ... additional development on B-1, if that's what you're asking. They have made it clear to us that if we do additional on B-1 property, or on either property as a matter of fact, um, we'll have to come back in to ask for Health Department approval. As- as you've seen in that letter, that's specifically limited to the three bedroom, a three bedroom house- Yeah. ... going on this other track. So, we're, we're on notice that anything above that, we're gonna have to meet, go th- back through and ask for Health Department approval. Mr. Brewer? Mr. Murphy, the, the exact, or whatever this clause is you guys keep referring to says the, this, this may be done only if the commission finds that the properties have been used in a separate and distinct manner. What are the separate and distinct manners these two properties or the two sections of the property have been used in? Well, first of all, they, the mobile home went in as a principal use. It was a principal allowed use on the property when it went in in 1989. Second of all, it's been used by different families. I mean, they're, when it started out they were related families, but it's been two distinct housekeeping units through the years. Uh, they rented it for a period of over a year to a unrelated lady who lived there. Just, just rented it, which was totally legal to do. Um, as it is today, they, they are renting it to, um, a gentleman and his- At these other areas. ... fiance who are living there. The fiance happens to be the daughter of, uh, Ms. Strain. The- Same person. ... gentleman at this point does not have any legal relation there. They could rent it out tomorrow to an unrelated party again, as they have in the past. Um, so, and it, and they've always been on separate utilities, as I said, separate electric, cable TV, and phone, uh, since the, since the mobile home has been put in there in 1989. So, uh, those are the, some of the criteria you all look at in doing that, and I think we meet those criteria. And I think in, in fact it is, that they are separate housekeeping units. All right. The mobile home is gonna be... They're gonna destroy that so the- these family members are going elsewhere. Yes, uh- Your client is gonna build a house. ... Jeff's sister-in-law will have to move out. And, um, the, I think the, I... Jeff, Jeff, you tell me if I'm wrong. I think the overall plan is that when, th- concept is that when Ms. Bogey and her, Ms. Strain and her husband decide to retire and downsize, that the other daughter will move into the big, the big house. I think that's the general plan. But the, Jeff will... The, I've talked to Building Inspection about this, and when you're building a house, Building Inspection will let you keep the mobile home there to live in until the date of the occupancy permit of the house. Then once you get the occupancy of the permit of the house, the mobile home will have to be removed off the land. They, I mean, I don't know if it'd be destroyed or sold to somebody who will take it off and move it someplace else. Okay. And, and where are the deed restrictions to which you refer? Well, I've got those and I can, I can... I, the, the Old Richmond Road has not prevented me from handing those into the record if you all wanna see 'em. I can, I can enter 'em into the record here if y'all want. I'm, I'm happy to show 'em to you. I'd like to see 'em, yeah. Okay, let me... They're, they're in my briefcase and I gotta find 'em here. Yeah, okay. Okay. But- Oh, hold on a second. Well, I, oh, let me pass 'em around. Y'all probably wanna see 'em. I, I can find them real quick. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I've got, I've only got... This is m- this is my only set of the signed deed restrictions, so I'm gonna ask the staff to- I promise not to keep you. ... run us a copy here on it. And the, I've got a deed restriction and a agreement and an escrow agreement regarding holding this thing. As I said, that has been signed. You'll see- Yeah. ... that's a signed copy. That's not the original because Jim Hodge has the original and is holding it, and that's so that if you approve this we can't then back out on our deal to sign the deed restrictions. We've already signed it. So if you all approve this, he just takes it to the courthouse and records it. If you don't, he tears it up. Mr. Hodge... Not Mr. Hodge, Mr. Murphy. I was thinking about Mr. Hodge. Uh, being as we have this, one of the commission members is reading this, d- don't we need to enter this in the record? I'm asking legal that question. Um... Yes, once it becomes part of your consideration, whether it be one member or all of them look at it, it does, we will need to have copies for the record. Right. Well, then I would suggest, Mr. Murphy, that we do enter this in the record. That's fine. If I could just have a photocopy back. You all, you all can keep that copy. And uh, but as you can see, if you, when it goes around, you're gonna see this is pretty, pretty extensive. The uses that we are allowed are essentially on the B-1 in the future, if, if it's ever done, have to be equine-related or we can have a sit-down restaurant, but it cannot be a fast food, cannot be a chain restaurant, just as a one shot restaurant on here. Talked about things, they, they mentioned there was, there's one on, uh- ... Old Frankfurt Pike that they like over in Woodford County, something like that, uh, on here, but restricts, uh, can't have a service station- I don't- ... uh, can't have a convenience store... Yeah, can't have a convenience store, speedway, shell, you know, that kind of stuff. I don't think we can sell gas there at all. Um, can't have a delic- you know, a fast food or, you know, that type of thing on the property. We can do, and I don't... I'm going by memory 'cause like I said, that's my only copy, is the gift shop, equine-related matters, tack shop, um, but it's all set out there what, what we can and can't have. Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have one follow-up question that just, I just realized. The, th- one of the, one of the items on here says that there's no more, there will be no more than two septic sys- systems located on the property. So if you develop a B&B, which is allowed here, that's gonna tap into the existing septic tank on the other property. Is that correct? It is. We'd have to get a health department approval to do that before we do that. But we, under this, it would not violate our agreement with Old Richmond Road Association and the Fayette Alliance if we did that. Mr. Chairman, ???????. I- is there any- Mr. Holmes, do you still want to speak to this? Okay. Go ahead. He, he, he was on my list, and I just wanted to be sure I got it. Go ahead, Marie. Where could we, you put a B&B legally right now with this agreement? Well, there's t- there's two things we'd have to comply with. First, we'd have to comply with that agreement, and I think that agreement would allow us to put a bed and breakfast on the property. Which property? It... Well- The B-1 or the AR? Well, I haven't loo- there's, there's no desire to do that, so I haven't even looked into that. Uh, I'm not sure we could do it in the B-1. AR, there's spacing requirements. You have to be- Mr. Murphy's correct. In AR, it's a conditional use subject to a one-mile spacing from the nearest similar use. It's not permitted in B-1. So for a B&B, we'd have to come to the Board of Adjustment to get a conditional use permit. We'd have to notify everybody up to a mile in radius. And we'd be dealing with the Old Richmond Road Association and Fayette Alliance again. But wouldn't you be dealing with putting a B&B in a three-bedroom house? Yeah. I'm not gonna ask- It's very unlikely. Yeah. I mean these, wha- what's on that list is just things that sort of irregardless of zoning, the Old Richmond Road and Fayette Alliance thought might be appropriate someday on this property, that they, they would be comfortable with having on this property. And that's not to say it... I hesitated to put that in 'cause I was concerned you all would think we want to do all these things on the permitted list. Well, these are just things we all talked about sitting around a table on it. So that agreement says that there, on this whole, what is it, 14 acres or so, there can only be two septic tanks period? Yes. Okay. Yes. And we cannot, we cannot subdivide this property further. That's in there too. Uh, can't have a gas, can't sell gasoline. Can't have a... You know, all those different things on there. Yeah. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Are there any citizens' comments? Anybody want to speak to this? Let's talk, let's, let's go with the, uh, in support of the request. Any citizens in opposition to the request? If we don't have any citizens comments for or against, and Mr. Murphy's presented his case, uh, I guess we'll get into rebuttal. Mr. Murphy, you have any rebuttal? I didn't think you would. I, I would be very surprised if you had them. Staff? Mr. Chairman, staff also has no rebuttal. Of course, we'll be available for any questions the commission has on this, uh, this application. 'Kay. We will, at this time, turn it over to the commission. Uh, I, I will say to the commission that we have a waiver request and then we have the, uh, the, the staff recommendation for approval. Uh, and we wanna talk about those two issues and how they relate, and then we'll talk about a motion. Is there any, uh, planning commission discussion? I just wanted to rem- I... Mr. Chairman. Go ahead, Elaine. Um, I just wanted to remind the commission that, um, the, um, the spirit of the rural land management plan and the, um, 40-acre rule, um, this, this would not comply with the spirit of the rural land management plan nor the adopted policy of the, of the comprehensive plan, uh, to minimize, um, development outside the urban services area. I also wanted to remind the commission that, uh, in the immediate vicinity of, of this parcel, this 14-acre parcel, uh, Champagne Run, which is a, um, a stable, a riding stable. It's located across, uh, Old Richmond Road. We do have Judy Ray's, uh- ... opposite, on the opposite corner of Jacks Creek Pike and Old Richmond Road. But Phil Needham's farm, um, Phil Needham, I might remind you, is the, um, owner of, the mom of Mine That Bird, um, he owns a farm about a third of a mile, quarter of a mile farther down Jacks Creek Pike. I'm not sure if that's the farm where, um, Mine That Bird was foaled, but, um, you know, we do have some, some, um, active equine interests in this area. And again, to come full circle, the, the purpose and spirit of our comprehensive plan policy on the rural land management plan was to protect, um, the equine interest from encroachment. Anybody else? Um. Marie. I have here a copy of the, uh, rural service area land management plan, and this site is specifically listed on page 4, uh, 45, or Chapter 4-45, and, um, it's Richmond Road and Jacks Creek Road. If you will speak into your microphone, Marie, so we can hear you. And this, this is one of the things that they were worried about. If you want to put it up on the overhead. And it had to do, um, Bill, Mr. Sallee was part of this plan when it was written, and, um, so my question, I guess, is to Mr. Sallee, do you feel that this particular site is, what we're doing here today is in the spirit of the rural land use management plan, or are we sort of massaging our way around through a back door to convince ourselves that we're okay when really we're against the r- rural land management plan? I think what you're looking at there where the pen is identified refers to the B1 zone portion of the 14 acres that's before you. I think as Mr. Murphy has articulated, the real change that is proposed besides the creation of a new property line is the replacement of the mobile home in the AR portion of this property. The only thing else I would point out to you is in the AR zone, a single family dwelling is a principal permitted use along with agricultural, whereas mobile homes are more accessory uses. So you feel that this is in agreement with the intent of the rural land use management plan? Single family dwellings are, uh, allowed on rural farmland. You don't think? Yes. Any other discussion? I have some comments too, as well. Oh, a- are you rebutting what, what he said? Is that the point? I'm ********* comment was made by planning commission. I was just- All right, sir, I'll grant that. The, the rural land management plan, I think, does encourage, does not discourage residential uses in the rural area. The, and there's, I don't think the rural land management plan is in favor of retaining mobile homes as opposed to houses as well. The, the topic you had up there, the, as you all know, there was a zone change brought up, what, five or six years ago to rezone many of these rural crossroads, probably this one too, I, I don't know if this one was included, and that was withdrawn because of the, partly because of the hue and cry of owners out in that area. So this went to the rezoning, which was a, was a different issue than what we have before you today. What Mr. Murphy was referring to is that the planning commission, uh, started a down-zoning of property that was not being utilized as B1. Chris, you'll need to step in and help me on this, but- Well- ... if you want to go ahead with that, I think you're more qualified than I am to speak on that. Yes, when we did the rural land management plan is when we discovered, uh, although we knew they were there, but we discovered the extent of the B1 out in the rural area that had existed for decades. And the concern was that, um, uh, if they developed as businesses, uh, in inappropriate fashion, they would be incompatible with the rural area and, and cause issues. And we recommended, as you see, by the text that appears in the plan here, that those areas, um, that did not have businesses on them were recommended to be considered for agricultural zoning. Uh, a program was started, and I cannot recall whether this site was included or not, but we started a series of zone changes, uh, initiated by the planning commission. Um, uh, one or two of those went through, but as they came, they became more and more contested, more and more controversial, and the planning commission suspended the, that, um, type of approach. As an alternative, the planning commission then considered... ... text amendment modifications for B-1 in the agricultural rural -- or in the rural service area and proposed a number of restrictions to B-1 when it is in the rural service area to limit the size and scale and type of businesses. The Planning Commission recommended that text change to the Urban County Council. The Urban County Council referred that to its committee where it has lingered for years and years and has not seen the light of day since that time. Without making a statement one way or another, because in, in one sense the deed covenants that have been agreed to here are separate from the facts of the case as discussed by the staff, but I would comment as to the use, the restrictions certainly are much more in keeping with what the Planning Commission had recommended to the council with the text amendment in terms of size, scale, and types of uses that would be permitted. But again, um, that is somewhat of a side issue involving the negotiations and discussions between this applicant and, and the, um, other interested parties and was not, uh, as material in the staff's review of the facts of this case. Chris, if I, if I could add to that, because I was involved dr-directly, not only with the ruling management plan, but I was on the commission when we were doing this. This is almost, Mr. Murphy, a reverse of what we thought was gonna happen with the B-1 lots and what we were afraid would happen. Most of these B-1 lots are old stores, old repair shops, gasoline stations, those type of things that were out in the rural service area and many cases haven't been used 30, 40 years, uh, if not been a B-1 use. Um- Some never. Some never, that's, that's exactly it. Yeah, they've never been used professionally. So, you know, I, Marie, to answer your question, I don't really think it's, it's the spirit of it is it's almost reverse of what our fear was at that time. Uh, s-speaking as a commission member, not the chair, I will say to you that my fear of this whole thing has been, is that we are subdividing lots, uh, and we've got 19 or 20 or 21 of them out in the rural service area that all have different situations and different things and Mr. Murphy and Fayette Alliance and the applicant have gone through a lot of hoops to try to relieve the fears of Richmond Road Neighborhood Associations that won't be available to most of these lots. And so my concern is, as a planning commission member, not as chairs that we're setting a precedent here that we will have to deal in that type of level with every one of these that come up and how they come up. And, and that, tha-that's my concern. This is, this is a little bit unique because of the two principal residents. Um, the oth-my other concern while I'm speaking is the fact that it's never a good idea to have septic tank lines on other property. As, as a, as an owner of several houses in the rural a- in the rural area, uh, it's bad enough to fix your own, but have to go on somebody else's property and fix it or them fix it on your property is a bad situation. But that being as it may, we're, we're, we're in a different situation here. Any further discussion? If not, I'll... Go. I'd like to say one thing and it, it just piggybacks what Chris said. If commission members would look at the last page of the staff report, staff exhibits. If you look at the last page in the middle of the page of their recommendations, it says there are two substantial benefits of this subdivision in the staff's opinion. First is split zone lot will be eliminated and each lot will have a consistent zoning. Secondly, one non-conforming use will be eliminated if replaced with a single family dwelling as is proposed by the applicant. And I think this whole discussion is summed up right there. Mr. Holmes. Yes. Thank you. I just, I just want to wrap up my comments with, I don't think it's unusual for us to, to have businesses in, in the rural areas. I think that's the nature of, uh, what some of the rural areas were with crossroad communities and, uh, local stores and gas station that grew up at the time. So th-this, the B-1 doesn't bother me as much and I, I will see that and we continue to see it and we're going to get some non-conforming uses, uh, with the 40 acre rule that came into play. Um, the septic tank issue, I, I do have some concerns with that. Um, but overall, I, I think we're not increasing the density. That would be my concern. We, we, we have, uh, a single family unit there and we're not increasing any more residential than what's there in the B-1 with the restrictions, uh, that I, I think Fayette Alliance and the Richmond Road Association gives you a layer of protection that we probably couldn't have gotten, so, um, I wanted to share those comments. Any further comments? Uh, go ahead. Um, to follow up with what, um, Mr. Holmes just said, um, my concern is not with respect to density or having a residential unit on these lots. My concern is the four acre remnant parcel that's zoned B-1 and, um, there could be deed restrictions imposed on the property, but again, as planning commissioners, we do not enforce deed restrictions and that is a private agreement between the property owners and, uh, really should not be a part of the discussion here today. Um, we should be looking at the zoning classifications, the land uses that are permitted in the B-1 zone and anything private that happens between property owners should be their business and not ours. Before we ask for a motion, let me ask the legal staff, should we consider the waiver first and then the motion? I don't think it necessarily legally makes any difference, but obviously if you ... I, I think that the subdivision recommendation of approval was, wasn't conditional upon the granting of the waiver. Right. So I mean, so I mean, i- if the waiver is not granted then you know, it's obvious that the subdivision can't be approved. But, um, I, i- legally, I don't think it makes any difference which- All right. ... motion comes first, other than the fact that, you know, if you did the waiver motion and it failed, you couldn't then approve the subdivision. Right. Have you got a problem with that, Mr. Murphy? No. I was gonna agree. My ... We've ... I've talked to Jeff here. We would agree to put the same restrictions we agreed to with the Fayette Alliance on the Old Richmond Road on the plat. You can voluntarily put restrictions on the plat, um, with your approval. And we would, we would agree to do that. That would make them publicly enforceable, as well as the private enforceable. Is that something the commission would like to have to happen? Well, if there's no further discussion, th- then the chair will entertain a motion. Uh, Mr. Murphy's offer is on the table if you choose to, to accept it. Mr. Owens? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, to begin with i- in listening to all this, I, I must agree. I've got concerns, uh, with what I'm gonna deem is unintended consequences with the four-acre track of land, splitting a 14-acre track of land up in a rural area. Um, also, uh, I have serious concerns about what appears to be 22 other pieces of property throughout the rural area. Um, and then also, we've got a s- we've got a septic tank and/or drain field that, uh, is gonna be on a separate piece of property as well. Um, so, you know, w- with that as being my concerns, uh, I would move for disapproval of the, uh, waiver for the Land Sev- Subdivision Regulations on Plan 2008-76A, eh, 76F, Bogese State Lot number 1, Amended. Is there a second? Any discussion on the motion? We're ready to vote. Let's vote on the machine. What have I gotta do up there? We have to hold till she gets the motion in for you. I'm learning as we go here. Okay. Okay, let's vote. Everybody vote? Seven to four. Nays. Motion fails. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. If I may, uh, let me try again. Um, for what it's worth, um, sa- as stated, since I do have concerns about the other 22 pieces of property, uh, in the AR zone that does have business, eh, zoning to it, or in, in the ... in business zoning in the AR zone, eh, I would request for some more information in regards to the exact, uh, possible ramifications of those. And as a result of that, I would move for postponement of this time of the waiver of Plan 2008-76F, Bogese State Slot 1, Amended. That's your emotion? Yes, sir. Is there a second? The motion is to, uh, is to postpone, Mr. King? Technically, to postpone the plan. Postpone the plan. Okay. There's a motion to postpone the plan or there's a proposed motion. Is there a second? Second. All right. The motion is made and seconded. Any discussion? I guess I gotta wait. She gets it in there. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Owens. Now, the purpose of the postponement is for further disc- what's, what's the purpose? Mr. Owens, you wanna rea- cover it? It, it would be to give the staff a chance to review the other business zones, uh, similar to this. I think they've said there's a total of 23 of them that's out in the AR zone, to see what possible ram- ramifications might come of those in accordance to any sort of approval here. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, w-- we've been here about an hour and a half listening to the staff and everybody talk about this. Um, I, I don't see any need to postpone it any farther. Um... Any other discussion? If not, do we have the motion where we can vote? Okay, this to postpone to October the 8th is the motion. You can vote now. Motion failed. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Uh, I'd like to make a motion, please. All right, sir. I'd like to move approval Plan 2008-76F, um, for the reasons, um, staff has shown all the technic, that the property has met all the technical and legal items and meets the regulation, our regulations. Uh, the Fayette and Elyrichman Road have approved, um, a, uh, agreement with the owner to limit the use of B-1. Um, the, there, and, and I would like to put that on the plat for the applicant's, um, request. But there are already houses on the property, two dwellings on the property already. And, um, so I would move approval of, of this plan, uh, with the company waiver. Okay, and you're, you're approving the, uh, the conditions list of the staff on the back of this report. At 11 conditions? Yes, sir. Uh, the 11 conditions on the back of the report. Okay. Delete, delete current 11 and add the ones that the staff recommend. Chris- I'm sorry, did I, if I understood, uh, it was requested to add the requirement that the restrictions as per the private agreement- Right. ... be included on the plat? Yes. Be added as a condition? So that would be number 12? That'd be number 12. Okay. We all, we're all clear about that? Second from Ms.- Second. ... Ms. Richardson. And, and you are including the waiver request in your, in your motion? Yes, my, the waiver request is in my motion. Not gonna be accepted. Okay. I won't. Okay. Let's give her time to get that on and then we'll vote. While she... Chris, who ultimately has the responsibility to enforce those restrictions that are on the plat? I mean, can any property owner or... When they're added to the plat, then, then there will be, of course, the private agreement. I have not seen the agreement or reviewed it, so I couldn't comment as to what the enforcement mechanisms that are in that, but usually they're typically enforceable, uh, in court by one of the parties, the other, uh, the party that the restrictions are in favor of. Added to the plat, they would also be of record and would be enforceable at the time anyone sought a building or occupancy permit for the property. So it would be building inspection's responsibility? Go ahead. That's what I would like to see is if we're going to enforce those, I'd like a recess to review those to see if it's enforceable. All right. 'Cause tha- that was my concern. Are we putting something on building inspection that they can't enforce but, so could we incorporate that into this motion? So what was your request, Mr. Carpenter? We do what? If you could just give me a brief recess to look at those requirements, just to review them to see if we think we can enforce them. Yes, you, you can speak to the motion. Ms. Phillips. I just wanted to comment on... I like Mike. I think he's totally wrong on this one and, um, I think it's really poor planning to, uh, endorse, uh, creating a subdivision line, uh, to split up the user and the septic tank. I think that that is just, um, just a bad idea all the way around and that septic tank would be on the, uh, on the 10 acre parcel. The B-1 property would be separate from, uh, from its septic tank. And, um, I'm, I'm, my concern is not the 10 acre lot. My concern is the four acre balance and, um, and the precedent that we set there and the conflict with, um, with every other plan and policy we have for our rural area. Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Penn, I think, uh, if you would, uh, only add the permitted uses to the plat instead of the whole agreement, I think we can enforce that. Can you read the permitted uses to us? Or just, or, or give us an idea of what you're talking about? Let's see, we're talking about antique shop, artist studio, arts and crafts, bed and breakfast, uh, not more than five rooms, uh, community buildings, community centers, libraries, museums, equine boarding, training, equine equipment, apparel shop, equine veterinary, florist shop, um, no drive-through. Restaurant, which offers no entertainment or dancing. Let's see. Small farm winery. I think that got most of them. Gift or souvenir shop. Home office with home occupations. So those are permitted uses. Yes. Okay. Now, the per- person that made the motion and seconded, is that agreeable with both parties? It's agreeable with me. Okay. And that'll, that'll, that'll be part of the motion. All right, we have the motion. Uh, are we locked in where we can vote now? Can I ask a question? Sure. Regarding the motion. With, with these restrictions, excuse me for having to ask, but with these restrictions, we are talking about what would be the 10-acre track? The AR zone? No. No, this is- Oh, the B-1. This is with the B-1. The B-1. The B-1. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Basically, we've done it reverse of what we usually do. Okay. We usually list what we are not allowing. Okay. In this case, we're listing what we would allow. Well, when, when I heard bed and breakfast a moment ago, uh, I thought we were having this discussion that, you know, it possibly couldn't be in a B-1 zone, but it could be in an AR zone depending on how far it was a- away from something else. Yes, sir, Mr. King? 'Cause I would just like to comment too, that there's not necessarily inherently a conflict because as you know, 10 years from now, the zoning ordinance maybe change to permit a B & B in B-1. Um, and in which case, though these restrictions, if it were allowed generally, would not allow it here. So or, or would allow it as restricted. So, um, I think that's not necessarily inconsistent, is what I'm saying. The... With these requirements, there will be two tests. First of all, the test will be meeting these restrictions. Further, they still have to meet whatever zoning laws are in place for the property at that time. At that time. Okay. Are we ready to vote? All right, lo- Motion passes. We'll take ... take a 10-minute recess. We'll be back here in 10 minutes. Great afternoon. The next item on your agenda is on page two, under Final Subdivision Plans Item B, this plan 2009-72F Landsdowne Merrick Subdivision Unit 3A. Now, this is an amended final record plat for property located at 3119 Lansdowne Drive. Uh, the property is inside New Circle Road on Tates Creek, just off Tates Creek on Lansdowne, property situated at the corner of Monte Vesta and Lansdowne property, or Lansdowne Drive. It's one property off from Tates Creek. Purpose of this final record plat is to revise the building line along Monte Vesta Road from 40 feet to th- the zone-minimum 30 feet. The Subdivision Committee recommended postponement in its August 6th meeting, uh, subject to seven conditions, as shown in your agenda. Um, number seven was to correct the building line setback at the corner to round it appropriately for that rounded area of the... make sure the 30-foot building line here matches in this location. Small change. The other condition, number six, uh, relates to a waiver that is requested that you have a copy of in front of you for Lansdowne Merrick Unit 3A. The applicant, uh, requested a waiver very similar, almost identical to this for a, a different plat a few months ago. Um, he's requesting a, a waiver to Article 5-4H of the Land Subdivision Regulations. Uh, that subdivision regulation requires that final record plats be prepared jointly by an engineer and a land surveyor unless the plan is e- exempted from preliminary and improvement plans in accordance with Article 4-3. Now, that exemption is granted if there are no private or public streets to be constructed or other public improvements, uh, are required. In that case, only a land surveyor is necessary to prepare the final record plat. Um, however, Article 5-4H does not have a provision for a land surveyor to certify the plan. It doesn't have a certification. So the waiver for this particular plan is to revise this certification for a land surveyor to allow them to sign a final record plat because no public improvements are being done. They are already in place. The subdivision is already fully built. The staff does recommend approval of the requested waiver for the two reasons listed, as well as gives the revised certification on the back page. This is the certification that was used at the previous waiver on the Highacres Shopping Center, uh, at that time. Uh, if there's any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them for you. Any questions for Chris? Yes. Bree? Chris, are you saying that the staff approves this? Is this where they want to put the carport or the garage in the front? The staff, uh, recommended approval at the time of the Subdivision Committee out of- coming out of technical because it is not uncommon to have lots on corner lots with dual setbacks on them have- they come in and have requested to have their building line reduced down to the zone minimum and that they're asking to have it reduced to what the zoning ordinance currently allows as the minimum building line for the zone. Uh, and a lot of times they come in through the Board of Adjustment requesting variances on these corner lots in this situation. In this, in this c- case, they are actually requesting to amend the building line through the record plat. Yes, the staff did recommend approval at the time of technical. Well, did- has technical or has staff driven by as a passenger in a car and seen the relationship of the house to the gateway to this subdivision? Uh, I haven't, ma'am. You have not? I have not. Has there any staff been there on site, do you know? I couldn't answer that. So you all operated out of aerial photos? W- we operate out of what the zoning ordinance allows and what we've done in the past and what we- we're comfortable with for this plan. Okay, so you really di- No, we did not- ... go on site? ... go out and do, do a site visit for the site. No, ma'am. Any other questions? Chris, uh, help me understand on the back of your waiver request. Yes. Where it's starred. Is that basically what we're seeing on that plat? Correct. Well, no, what you... that is the required certification. Right. That is what is not shown on here. What he's showing is the language that, uh, we used last time on the Highacres, uh, record plat that would allow, uh, a land surveyor to certify the plan. Which what's in the sub regs does not p- provide for that. So you're, you're wanting a land surveyor to be able to certify the plan instead of an engineer? Correct, because there's no public improvements to be, to be made on this plat. I just wanted us to all be clear on what we're doing here. Yeah. Any other questions for Chris? Thank you, Chris. All right. Petitioner, Mr. Murphy, we're getting a big diet of you today, aren't we? I'm Dick Murphy, again, representing the applicant and, uh, this is the only other case I have today here and will be much shorter than we were on the other one. Um, I represent Charles and Ruthann Edwards, who live and own at the pr- own the property at 3119 Lansdowne Drive. They're here with me today. Charles and Ruthann, and Roger Ladenberg, who's the surveyor is here as well, uh, with us and, um- I understand there were some concerns raised, I was not at the subdivision committee, about the setback, and so I'm prepared to address that. I mean, we do, we do agree with all the staff conditions. I think the waiver only relates to whether there needs to be an engineer's stamp on this plat, as well as a surveyor's stamp. And, and I understand it's routine to grant that waiver when the engineer is not needed, because there's no street or public improvements given. But, uh, I understand there is some concern about the setback, which I am prepared to address, unless y'all don't wanna hear it at all. But, uh, I'll, let me hand out my handout here. Go ahead. Just let those get around there, and uh... On the, uh, as, as I, as the staff mentioned, this property is located at the corner of Lansdowne Drive and Monte Vesta Drive. Tates Creek Road is up here. We do not tache- te- touch Tates Creek Road. Uh, we are at the corner behind that at Monte Vesta Road and Lansdowne Drive. Now, down, there's a row of houses along here. Behind this row of houses is a big open area, right immediately behind is a major KU transformer station. And behind that is a park, Lansdowne-Merrick Park. And Angelius Marx Elementary School behind that. And it's zoned R-1c. Has been since it was originally developed. And in my handout at page one, I just note that in R-1c, the front yard requirement is 30 feet on there. The, uh, uh, I understand that, uh, there was some concern raised about the aesthetics of the proposed carport, uh, on this property raised at the subdivision committee, and, um, after the subdivision committee met, and this was postponed a month, the, um, Edwards went to consult with their neighbors to see what their neighbors felt about this proposal for their property. And on pages three to five of my handout, I do have the petitions that they obtained from 45 neighbors who understood what they were doing, were shown what they were doing, and then said, "I strongly support the proposed plan and urge the Planning Commission to approve the reduction of the building line." And these are people very close by to their property at 3119 Lansdowne Drive. You can see there's 45 signatures there. Now on page two of the handout, Roger mapped that out for us, the people who signed the petition. And if you'll take a look at page two, the subject property is in orange. And they went to everybody up and down the street. There's, in the residential area, the people in green are the people who signed the petition in favor of granting this request, and you can see everyone who either touches the property of the Edwards or they can't even see the Edwards property from their property has signed the petition in favor of this. Now, the yellow means that nobody was home when the peti- when they went by to talk to them. The Edwards just didn't knock on the door once. On all these properties, they have come back at least three times to try to catch somebody at home, and everybody on Monte Vesta, they came back at least four times to try to catch somebody at home to talk to them and just couldn't do it and after four, so it wasn't like, you know, knock, nobody's there. Well, okay, I'll run out and mark this off. It's, they have made repeated attempts to talk to the other people. One person didn't agree with it. That's the person down at the corner of Monte Vesta Court and Monte Vesta Road we've colored in, in pink there. Ironically, their, they have a 30-foot setback on one side and 35 foot o- on the other already. Um, but I think the, the point of this is that they went to their neighbors to see what their thoughts were, explained it to them, showed it to them, and everybody shown in green here, 45 people, signed petitions supporting what they're proposing to do. The, uh, I, I wa- I also looked at other plats in the area because I know it's been routine that when a person has a platted setback line, which is more than the required setback line, that the planning commission will approve the setback line to be moved to the required setback line, which is, in our case, 30 feet as required in R-1c, which is exactly what we're requesting. On page six of my handout, I have the plat for this property, and I just wanted to show there that, on our Lansdowne Drive side, we have 30 feet. Currently on Monte Vesta, we have 40. On page seven... I looked at some -- there's been amendments to the Lansdowne, Merrick plats through the years and seven is one plat. This is also on Monte Vista. They spelled Monte Vista wrong. It's not Monte Vista, it's Monte Vista, but it's the same street. Um, that's where in 1995 the planning commission approved the reduction in the building line to 30 feet, the required amount in R1C, just as we're requesting there. Uh, again on page eight, this is again on Monte Vista. This is a, this is a duplex. Everything else I'm showing you on Monte Vista and everything else in my packet is a single family. This happens to be a duplex on Monte Vista, which has a 30-foot building line. On page nine, uh, is the one block, half a block down. This is Monte Vista Court and Monte Ves- excuse me, Monte Vista Circle and Monte Vista Drive. I just brought this in so you can show the platted lot lines do vary through here. You can see on Monte Vista Drive, 35, 40, 35, and going around the circle you've got, uh, 30-foot building line. Then going back up on the other side is 35, so it does vary as you go through here, through the neighborhood. On page 10 of the handout, I have another variance that was granted. This is also in Lansdowne, Lansdowne, Merrick. It's not in, on, uh, Monte Vista Road, but it's nearby. Again, the planning commission granted a change from 30 feet to 22 feet for a front lot line on Whittington Court. And finally, probably the most important one is the last plat. This is the plat of property the next unit down from this, one block from this property. You can see this is the other major entrance into Lansdowne, Merrick along Albany Road, and some of the, some of the setbacks in the interior of Monte Vista are 40, but along Albany Road and Monte Vista Road intersection you can see there's four houses, obviously eight front yards because the side street, side yard essentially counts as a front yard through there. And of those eight yards, seven of them are 30 feet, just as what we're requesting. One of them is 35 feet, uh, which is, uh, on one of the lots. So I guess I, I put those in to show you a couple things. One is that corner, corners are treated differently, have been historically in this neighborhood as far as setback goes. Uh, secondly, there have been individual lots changed in the past, uh, on this property for, as they come in to you to move to the required setback line, and generally s- uh, subdivisions in Kentucky are considered legally a ministerial process, and as long as the plat meets the requirements set forth in the ordinance, uh, planning commissions generally are obligated to approve those. We do meet all required setback lines, uh, as, as we requested of 30 feet. It, we have 30 feet alread- already on Lansdowne Drive. Uh, corner lots are treated differently. These have been changed in the past to meet 30, and I think most importantly, um, all neighbors pro- no- all neighbors touching this property or who can see it have seen this proposal and they have signed a petition in favor of this after it's been fully explained to them. So as you all know, no notice is required for subdivision plats, but the Edwards have taken the step of going to see their neighbors, to show them what they're doing, and ask if they approve it or not, and I think the neighborhood has spoken to you through these petitions that we presented to you. So, uh, I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about this, but we'd ask your approval of this plat request. And we do agree with the staff conditions and we are requesting that waiver so that an engineer's stamp is not required for the plan. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? No. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mike? Excuse me. I wasn't able to respond electronically. Mr. Murphy, do you have any idea why that building line is 40 feet and 35 feet through there, even though the, you stated the R1C has a 30-foot building line? Well, that's the way the original developer did it, and I don't know- All right. ... what the original motivation was. As I pointed out at some other corners, it is 30 feet already. I guess a developer would have something, some reason to do that, uh, you know, 'cause that would add expense to all his houses if he, uh, you know, he'd add 10 more feet of driveway to every house and waterline and that sort of thing. He must have had some, some good reason to do that. I mean, I don't know what it was. Well- You don't either, so- Yeah, I'm sure they did have a reason, but again, that didn't stop, prevent the planning commission from granting amendments to those in the past. And d- do you have a, uh, site plan of what you're gonna do? Uh, I think we do. Let's see here. I know I do, I just- I just don't understand why y'all kept seeing that. Give me a second. I have some -- I do have a site plan and I've -- and I can't put my finger on it, I do have a photograph to show what we're proposing to do. Um, I know I've got it here. Sorry, it's been a confusing, hectic afternoon here for me. Um ... Okay. Got it. Here a little more. I didn't think this would take any time at all, but it is. This is a -- shows you the outline of the house and the ... Of course, here's Lansdowne Drive coming in. Here's Monte Vista. This is the existing 30-foot building line along Lansdowne. This is our proposed line along Monte Vista. This will be a, a ... What they're proposing is a, an acrylic awning, um, extending from the garage. Mr. Edwards is a automobile hobbyist who restores cars, and I wanna emphasize that he does not do that work here in his house. He has a separate shop on Manchester Street, zoned B4, which he uses for all automotive work. Uh, but he does like to drive his cars around, and when he drives them, he'd like to get 'em out of the sunsi- sunshine and the elements. So, this will be a acrylic awning. There is a, be a metal support at the end for the, for the, for the use. We felt it was more like a temporary use and would not require a building permit, but I think the Building Inspection Division has indicated that they would classify this as a carport, as what they would consider a permanent structure. So, they requested f- first of all that we go through the Board of Adjustment to get a variance on this, and, uh, when the applicant ... This is, went to the staff to talk about that. The board has nothing to vary because we're already behind. We're still not exceeding the required setback line, so we'd be asking for a variance from 30 to 30, you know, n- no variance at all. So, the answer was that we had to come to you to request a change in the 40-foot building line to accommodate this acrylic awning that will be used to extend out a little bit from the, from the garage on that. We have a, we have a digitized rendering about what this will look like, if you'd like to see that too. I mean, technically, the looks of these things are not something that are germane to the action, but I know you like to see these things, so we had one made up, and I do have to say that I'm doing this without, uh, conceding that the, the aesthetic appearance is a matter to be decided upon in a subdivision plat, but we think the aesthetic appearance is pleasing for this. There are two photographs. This is- Can you zoom in? If you could brighten that up. This is the view from Monte Vista Road, and the picture itself is much more distinct, if, if it's possible to ... There we go. That's helping. We wanna emphasize that the, uh ... This is, this is as it exists today, without the awning. Okay? This is just to show you the before picture. The, the metal, um, support is in the ground there. The automobile you see on the right is not in the Edwards' driveway. That is the neighbor's driveway. They come out and merge as sort of a ... At the s- same point. Er, they don't actually merge, but they ... There's no grass between them when they enter Monte Vista Road there, but the ... So the, the, the car you're seeing is not on the Edwards property. Uh, the second picture is the d- is a digitized adaption of that photograph to show you ... Well, it's so dark, the awning is not really showing up there. You can see it a little bit on the- I can't see. ... left side. I've got a black and white of that, and actually, the black and white may show up better. Yeah. Hope your eyes are better by then. Okay, that's the, that's the before shot in black and white. It's the same, same one as the color you just saw. I just ran a color, a black and white copy from my own file. And then the second one is the ... Again, you can show it. I'll pass 'em around so you all can look at 'em- That'd be- ... in better quality, there. If y- if you all could pass those around, here's, here's a ... I need, I need a dog, I think. Go ahead, Mike. Mr. Murphy. Yes. Where do you think the 40-foot line is up there on that drawing? Um- Is it right at the corner of the house, parallel to the 30-foot line? Roger, if you look up here, I think the 40-foot line comes up about to the edge of the house. So the bulk of that awning is ... Set back in. So, so the whole new addition is not encroaching over the 40-foot? That's right. That's right. Just, just the corner of it? Right. Mm-hmm. Is that not permissible with a porch ... Bob Carpenter? The building is 20 feet from the house. If I'm not mistaken, you can only encroach five feet over that building line and that's his problem. He's got to go farther. Well, I mean, can you, um ... Is that considered a porch maybe? No. No. That's not a porch. 'Cause a porch can go more. Yes, seven or eight feet, but it can only be so high. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Yes. Marie. Mr. Murphy, how big is the residential part of the house? How many square feet are we talking about? I think it's 3600 square feet. Really? He thinks the foot ... He thinks it's 3600. I ... Does that include the four-car garage behind doors- That's a little large. Well, there's a three-car garage there. Three-car garage. That includes that. Yeah. Includes it. Includes it. Okay. So if you take that away. About 2000. 5000. I don't know. 2000 square foot house. Oh, it's over that. Oh, it's bigger than that. Okay. They, they can come up and ... Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Unless, uh, if we're, if we're gonna have some dialogue, come, come to the microphone. Marie, are, are you ... I'm getting at, how many cars can you park underneath the canopy? You can park three cars in it. Okay, so you're gonna be able to park six cars there when you get finished. Well, uh, inside, no three cars inside. There's a two-car garage and a single car garage. So you've got three inside. Yes. And you'll have three outside. You could park three cars outside, yes. Under the canopy? Yes, you could. With a 2500 square foot house, six cars? Let's see. I think the house is bigger than that. Okay. It's, uh, four bedrooms, three baths, so I think it was bigger than that. I, I had the pleasure of seeing some of his cars and these are not cars you take out every day. I'm sure. They're old classic ones with no top and no, no sides and all that stuff. And that's why he has to keep them under cover there, I suppose. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Uh, thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank y'all. Are there any citizens' comments? Anybody wanna speak to this, or f-forward or against it? Chris, you have anything else you wanna add? You through? Mr. Murphy, I know you don't wanna rebut yourself. We've already been down that road today. Any other, any other questions 'fore we turn it over to the commission? If not, we'll turn it over to the commission for your consideration. Marie. Um, when this came up in, in, uh, subdivision committee, we asked for the privilege of going out and driving the site so we could understand what we were talking about because, uh, there was ... You, you ... It sort of triggers questions because this house sits, uh, diagonal to the other houses. And it is a gateway house where, when you go down the hill, you sort of turn around the corner and it, it's, it's ... If you lived there, you'd start to take it for granted, but if you are visiting like once every 10 years and coming down through there, uh, it's, it's a significant house. And to sit the cars out in front of it, to me, with your view lines, your sight lines because you're going slow and you, you would angle out greater, I think it's obstructive to entering that subdivision. That is my personal opinion. It has nothing to do with legality. It is just an aesthetic opinion as a landscape architect. But I would hope that we would not do that, and I empathize with his beautiful cars. He had his beautiful cars out there and they were so shiny and pretty and nice, but I think this is not, in the end, a good thing for this neighborhood. And we're going to have more and more of this as we get tighter and tighter with infield where we have to, um, address being a tighter group of people where we're expanding and expanding. Um, so that's, that's just my thoughts on it, and, uh, it is nothing personal, Mr. and Ms. Edwards. It's just that as a gateway to that pretty street and that corner with sight lines and so forth, I don't think it's appropriate. Joan? Mr. Chairman, are you ready for a motion? Well, is, is the commission ready for a motion? Does anybody else wanna speak before we have a motion? Um, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I think that this property, um, has... Well, I won't, I won't use the word uniqueness because, um, it is not the only property in town that experiences this, but it is on a corner and, uh, sits on a diagonal to that corner, and, uh, for that reason, um, I, I would support granting the, uh, granting the waiver as requested. Anybody else wanna speak before the motion? I, I just wanted to say that- Ms. Edwards, if you're gonna speak, you need to come to the mic. We don't usually allow this when we turn it over to the commission, but come on and be very brief. Um, when Mr. Edwards spoke of being three cars there, that won't be a permanent thing. Uh, mostly we just use it for, uh, temporary. He's home at night and he park, would park under th- there at night, but normally there would not be three cars there. And it would just be coming and going, you know, when we would come and go in the old cars and things like that for a short period of time. It's not that we're gonna park three cars there permanently. Okay. Mm-hmm. Thank you. All right, let's turn it back over to the commission. Uh, what's your pleasure? We need a motion, Joan. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of plan 2009-72F, uh, for the reasons provided by staff, and for the approval of the waiver, um, again for the reasons provided by staff. Is there a second? Second? Any discussion? If not, let's let them get it in the machine, then we'll vote. All those vote. All right. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. All right, who's next? I think we got one more. Page four. Yeah. ...
... depends on what happens here. Mr. Mullin. Go ahead, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman. Good to see you. Thank you . Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page four. It is plan 2009-69F. That is item H. Rich Station Subdivision Amended is a final record plat. This plan was on your agenda last month. At that time, you recommended approval of that plan and you granted a waiver to this plan as well. The applicant accepted the conditions of that waiver at that meeting and then subsequently came to staff and said, uh, "We continue to have a problem with the language contained in that condition," and specifically the waiver that was requested of you was similar to the previous case. It is a waiver of the engineer land surveyor's certification. In this case, this plan was amended, you may recall, to remove the shared access driveways, the symbol and the notes on this plan. For that reason, they requested a waiver of the certification stating, "Well, we're not going to actually survey all this property and verify that information." Staff understood, agreed, recommended approval of the waiver subject to the language you can see on your agenda. And again, below the, the plan conditions, you can see the recommendation was made subject to the following statement. What we have done, uh, we have reevaluated their request to reconsider this waiver, and we've handed it out to you, a new waiver report. It's thin, it only has their letter and the subdivision regulations attached to it. Again, it's titled Plan 2009-69F, Rich Station. If you will turn to the rear of that, the back page, you can see that once again, staff is recommending approval of the waiver and the recommendation... And by the way, uh, you do have a handout that I gave you that reflects the applicant's request here in pink. Staff, again, is-- is recommending approval of the waiver subject to a modification in-- in the language contained in our subdivision regulations. And you can see that what we've done is we've taken in bold that statement that, "All monuments indicated hereon do exist, and their locations, size, and materials are correctly shown." And we've agreed to strike that. In essence, this certification now requires a-- a signature that states that, uh, the plan was prepared by me, or under my direction, it meets the provisions of the regulations, the ordinance, and this planning commission. And that, and this is the key we think is-- is important along, that, "To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information shown hereon is accurate." That's what we're recommending, that they, uh, use as certification. Again, they had originally requested what is outlined there in pink, and which we handed out to you, which staff felt was-- was not adequate, did not meet the intent of the regulations, was basically a statement of the amendment itself. And the amendment is that they are removing those shared driveways. Um, so again, staff recommends approval of the waiver as presented to you in the report. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Norton. Thanks. Petitioner? Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Matt Williams with Summit Engineering. Uh, we are in agreement with this language, uh, with the, uh, statement in bold that is marked out, and request approval. All right, sir. Any questions? If not, thank you, sir. Okay, we-- we-- we understand what the staff request is, and, uh, turn it over to the commission and look for a vote for a motion. Ms. Phillips? Um, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move approval of the, um, of the waiver, planned 2009-69F, Red Station Subdivision Amended, uh, for the reasons provided by staff, um, and including the modified, uh, engineer's certification, as presented on page two of our staff report. I second. You've heard the motion, there's a second. Is there any discussion? All right, you see the motion on your screen. Let's vote. Motion passes, thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the next item on your agenda is on page five. It is plan 2008-118, Sand Lake and Estes Property. This is on your agenda for a similar reason as, uh, Ritz Station and others that you've seen, in that when this was originally approved, there was a waiver request with this plat. Uh, at that time, the planning commission reviewed this plan, and you did grant that waiver request. That request had to do with the timing of the construction and acceptance of this area of this proposed street with Richmond Road. And it had to do, uh, with significant relocation of utilities, fiber optics, and those sorts of things, um, that had to be dealt with prior to fully constructing the road and-- and getting things done, and, uh, in a timely manner. This part of the plat has been recorded. The only part that now is a section is this lot back in here. So the area with this street, this is being constructed now, and this has been dedicated. Zaxby's is now built here. Well, maybe on this lot. So this, and again, and I apologize, I-- I took for granted you've seen Sand Lake so often you know where we're talking about. It is, of course, at the corner of Man of War and Richmond Road. Staff is recommending approval of this plan. Uh, it is necessary to be reapproved so they can, uh, record the second section of this plat. At this time, because the area where the waiver was necessary has been recorded, staff doesn't feel that action on the waiver is actually necessary. We did feel it was necessary, however, to present the plan to you, and that is why you see it on your agenda today, as opposed to the consent agenda. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. So Mr. Martin, for clarification, we're, we're going, we're going to re- we're not going to fool with the waiver? We're going to rescind the waiver request? It, the, the waiver is a moot point- All right. ... at, at this time. So reapproval is all we need to do on this? Yes, sir. All right, sir. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Rory, you got anything to say too? No, I recommend approval. And you are? Just Ryan. All right. You, you have it in front of you. Uh, you heard Mr. Martin say that we don't need to deal with the waiver. Uh, Sand Lake, I think, has been here as long as I have and, uh, it's, uh, at least. So the Chair will entertain a motion or a committee discussion, however you want to do it. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve plan 2008-118F, Sand Lake and Estates Property, with the 19, uh, recommendations. Second. There's been a motion. And second? Are we ready to vote? I don't know that you have it on the screen. Yeah. All right, let's see our votes. Motion passes. Thank you Mr... Thank you, Rory. Can I give you a sandwich or something? Yes. I don't want to leave that long without... All right, where are we now, Mr. Martin? Cheryl? Good afternoon. Please. If y'all turn to page six, item L2005-166F Clark Property Unit 1B, um, this plan was previously approved and reapproved and reapproved. Um, currently they're asking for a one year extension on the plan because, um, as of tomorrow, this plan will expire. The property is located to, um, out in the Clark Property, which is just southwest of Polo Club Boulevard, between Polo Club and I- Interstate I-75. They currently already have, um, these 23 lots recorded. They're coming back just to ask so that they can record these last eight lots, and that's why they need the extension. St- staff looked at it and, um, agreed for the extension for approval with, uh, some conditions that they have listed here. Anything else? Any other questions? You have any questions for Cheryl? If not, Rory? We're going to make you get up, man. All right. Stretch my legs. Rory Keough with EA Partners. Um, I am in agreement with staff's recommendations and request approval. Thank you, Keo-... Any questions for Rory? If not, why, we'll turn it over to the Commission. Mr. Chairman, I move, uh, the reapproval of, uh, plan 2005-166F Clark Property Unit 1B. It's an extension? It's an extension, one-year extension. You've heard the motion for a one-year extension for plan 2005-166F. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Are we ready to vote? We are. Good deal. Guess what, Rory? It passes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, turn to page... We got the development plan, yeah. You turn to page seven. That'll be our next one, development plan at the bottom of page seven. Mr. Chairman, I would like, during the interim, um, to move acceptance of the release and call of bonds. The memo dated September 10th 2009 from Chris, uh, from Ron St. Claire to Chris King. Okay. You- Second. Call the bonds. Motion is made and seconded to approve the call of bonds. Just wait till she gets that on there. Okay, we're ready to vote. All in favor, please vote. Mr. Martin? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. On item, on page seven, under 3D Development Plans item A- You have Development Plan 2009-34 Beaumont Farm Unit One Section One Amended. This is a final development plan. It is being -- it is located in -- out on Beaumont Circle. Here's the entire circle. Here is the Beaumont Center Parkway as it comes from Harrodsburg Road. Here is New Circle Road. This is the area of the plan. Here's Lake Crest Circle, Monarch Street, again the property here. Here is Wall Street as it, uh, lines up here with the proposed development. This amendment that you see before you is for this area here, a generator yard, and to add this access point onto Beaumont Circle. Now, when you previously approved this plan, they had requested this access point as it lines up with Wall and this parking lot. Staff at that time recommended disapproval of that access point. Now, staff doesn't feel it's necessary to go over every item for that disapproval. We would point out that this plan was actually recommended for approval. You can see that on your agenda, subject to seven, eight conditions. Seven conditions being very standard, the eighth condition being remove the entrance to Beaumont Center Circle as per the approved development plan. And again, staff believes that this area, and again, we showed you the big picture. You can see the various access points. It's heavily traveled. The system works very well, and we felt that this introduction of an unnecessary access point was just that, unnecessary. I- it added a conflict point, it added a safety factor for not just vehicular traffic but pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well. Um, I believe you'll recall that presentation and how we, uh, staff viewed that. Uh, we stand by that recommendation and again, that's the reason you see it, condition number eight. We believe certainly this is an approvable plan as long as they remove that access point. And that's our position today as it was when this plan was previously approved. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Mr. Owens? Uh, I think you just covered it right at that last end, end statement. This has been before s- before and the access there was denied before. Yes, sir. Correct. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Petitioner. Good afternoon, uh, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, uh, members of the planning commission. Uh, my name is Todd Gut. I'm with Mat group Architects, um, and, uh, we're from Michigan. Pardon us, pardon me. Um, but we have Rory with us, so, um, um, he can stand up for us. Um, I represent Auto Owners Insurance, uh, Company, who is building the building that, uh, uh, has proposed on Beaumont Center Circle. Um, and some months ago, you are correct, I did stand here before you, um, and present an entire, uh, site plan, and, uh, proposed a building. I made a bunch of promises to you, um, and, uh, um, I promised that, uh, um, the materials that we would use on the building, the building vernacular would be that of, uh, a building in Kentucky, and specifically Lexington, Kentucky. Um, I told you that Auto Owners, uh, appreciated the value, um, and the investment that the community of Lexington has made into the Beaumont Center Circle, and we hoped that we would contribute to that. Um, and now that we're a couple of months away from finishing the building, um, you see the exterior of the building, um, you see the sheet metal still, uh, going up on the roof. You see that asphalt has been paved, curb has been placed, um, landscaping is well under way, um, and you now see the value of, um, of the, the building, um, and you can see that we have delivered on our promises. One part of the proposed plan that was denied, um, in that original plat was that entrance drive off of Beaumont Center Circle. Um, we believe that that drive will, um, not create any dangerous, uh, traffic conditions as it meets, um, the standards, the basic standards of traffic conditions, such as an entrance drive that is some 350 feet away from, uh, um, a major intersection, or in this case, it's directly across from, um, um, Wall Street. Um, the, uh, um, we also believe that a, a second entrance drive, um, will provide, um, our users with entrances and egress from two locations, as well as emergency vehicles that can come and go, um, should an event happen at one of the entrance drives, as well as, as the, the real reason that we are asking for it, um, is that, um, Auto Owners Insurance, um, does not sell insurance out of this building, they underwrite insurance out of this building. They use independent salesmen, um, around the state. ... to sell their insurance, and they bring those independent salespersons to this building on occasion for training and, and, uh, picking up, uh, documents and things. Um, and it is a much simpler, easier, uh, directional address, uh, to bring them across and turn them in. Um, the small parking area in front of the building is designated for any, um, visitors or the senior executives that are in the building. Um, so with the building nearly complete, and you can see, um, that we believe we have contributed to the value of, uh, Beaumont Center Circle, we would just simply ask that you reconsider, um, that drive, uh, for us. Um, there also may be an unintended consequence, um, that you may not have realized, um, of that decision, um, and that is, is and in fact there is even some confusion on your agenda today. Um, if you look at our item, um, it says that this property is, um, um, addressed at 3100 Beaumont. Um, but the address, uh, uh, committee or the addressing office has not given us that address. Um, in fact, they've given us the address of 1124 Monarch Street. Reasonably, um, they have chosen that address because the only entrance drive we have is off of Monarch. Um, however, Auto-Owners greatly values the Beaumont Center development. Um, they've put a big investment into the Beaumont Center and believe that we're contributing to the Beaumont Center development. Um, they believe in it because they bought four lots and, and, um, spent a significant amount of money to be a part of the Beaumont Center Circle, and they would like to identify themselves with the Beaumont Center Circle every time they hand out a business card or send out a business letter. The original property, um, um, the, m- one of the original properties, in fact, had that 3100 Beaumont Center Circle address assigned to it, um, reasonably believing that, uh, the property would then be able to use that address. Um, Auto-Owners, uh, not only hopes, uh, uh, to have contributed, um, in a physical way, we hope to also then, um, know that everyone in the Lexington area that we talk to, um, knows of the Beaumont Center Circle and would easily identify us with the quality and, and development that you have. Um, if you'll show the, uh, um, the first, uh, item, the Article 6 of, uh, the ordinance does, um, charge this commission with the assignment of a street address. And so, uh, um, this, this confusion, um, back and forth of the 3100 versus 1124 Monarch, um, can rest on your shoulders to decide that we are, uh, the property address can be 3100 Beaumont Center Circle. Um, Beaumont Center Circle, um, it is unusual to have an address with the drive around the corner. Um, if you'll show the next, um, uh, photograph, this is a photograph, um, that was taken today. Um, on the far left, we're not seeing the, the whole picture, but on the far left, there is the street sign of Beaumont Center Circle, um, and Monarch. Um, and just to the, uh, right of the front of the pickup truck, um, are the concrete, uh, um, ends of the sign. The sign actually hasn't been constructed yet, um, but the, uh, street sign and what we intend to do is we have a, a masonry street sign that bears the same field stone of the building, um, and that street address would occur on that sign, um, that identifies the property as Auto-Owners Insurance. Um, if you can look, um, just to the left of the stop sign, there's a couple of, uh, um, Porta-Johns. Um, that is the entrance into the property, um, easily identifying, um, both the sign entrance, the building, and access into the site, um, from the street. Um, just this second picture is taken a l- a little bit further around, um, of the front of the building, um, and Auto-Owners would be willing to, uh, also place numbers on the front of the building identifying that, uh, um, building and the street numbers off of Beaumont, um, allowing us access to the site. Um, we realize that, uh, um, the decision about, uh, not placing a drive, uh, off of Beaumont Center Circle is an aesthetic one, um, and one that you have made, um, and, um, Auto-Owners is willing to, um, um, use the site, try the site out, um, with the single drive, um, if that is your decision, um, without, uh, um, um, immediately e- entering into any kind of appeal. But we would ask that the address, um, of the property be identified with Beaumont Center Circle. Thank you for your time this afternoon. Anybody have any questions? I assume there's nobody in the audience that wants to speak to this. Staff, do you have any other comments? Marie? Mr. Martin, how many times have we addressed the Wall Street entrance, the blacktop Wall Street entrance, not the address? How many times have we gone over that? Three? Four? You -- you -- are you referring to the alignment, uh, this co-? Yes. Well, it was thoroughly discussed when this plan was performed. But I mean, it's been before this body three or four times already. Well, there's been a lot of plans. This particular plan has not been before you that often. Because it's got a Dempster dumpster or something attached to it, but they each come ... Well, they always come in with a token thing, "And we've got this intersection." But I -- I -- we've addressed that part, and we always, uh, agree with the staff that we are not going to have that. However, can we do something about the address? The ... To - to - to ... A point of clarification on your agenda. If you read the title, it says, "Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1, a portion of amended." The entire farm, the circle, was 3100 Beaumont. It's not the assigned address, and we're aware of that. It's more a nomenclature that helps us direct your attention to the location of the property. Right. But the comm- the - the commission cannot override the address people? You have, uh, you have delegated that as part of your conditional approval of plans to the E-911 committee, and I believe they are further bound by some additional ordinances within the city. And of course, they have a committee that reviews these things. So we can't in- uh, influence that at all? I would refer that question, I think, to our legal, to - to be absolutely clear on that point. I think since this is an authority that you delegated to, um, this addressing authority, I mean, it - it is initially authority that is granted to you. I think you can, um, take back that authority, um, at any time. I think the issue may be that with the 911 scheme and emergency services, I'm not sure what ramifications they might have. Um, I'm not sure how much time you have to consider this, but if you were going to do that, it seems to me, we might want someone from the addressing office to address whether that would cause any problems from a basis of providing emergency services. It seems- I think legally, you can exercise your authority. 'Cause we had the same problem with Curry Shoes. I mean, we're trying to get there for Moore Drive, and ... Mr. Holmes? It seems to me, we've delegated that to th- the commission. And I'd - I'd hate to arbitrate, take it back, when we want to ... Someone else wants another address, then give it back to the commission, then take it back. Uh, I'm just uncomfortable taking that back at this point. I- I'd rather sign the addresses to - to the commission responsible for that and let them make that decision. Any other questions or ... Mr. Martin? Mr. Martins, you want to respond to that? I might add something again, as a point of clarification. I do not wish to speak for them. Mr. Hocken Smith is no longer here, but I believe they have been working on, if not instituted, an administrative process to review the assignment of addresses. So I believe there may be an avenue open to the applicant to address the issue of addressing. Okay. So that would be at the applicant's discretion to do that? Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions? Mike. Oh, excuse me. That mic. So - so the only way that - that we can affect that is to allow the entrance in there? No, I think- If we allow the entrance in there, then - then they would address it Beaumont Circle. I think if you allowed them access to Beaumont Circle, then the practice of the E911 committee is to assign addresses based on access. And - and - and I'm not ... I've not been opposed to the entrance off Beaumont Circle. That's a ... It lines up with the other street, and, uh, that is a boulevard, which is wider than most streets, and you can ... One car can pull over, another one can go around without even stopping it. I ... I mean, I've always voted in favor of allowing that access, but, um, I don't know if anybody else would. No. Any other questions? Rory? Um, Phillip Stiefel's been down here before discussing this with you, and I've talked to him outside of here, asking, you know, this lot that Auto-Owners bought, the final record plat has five addresses placed on that piece of property. One of 'em is 3100, uh, Beaumont Center, and, um, I believe on the plan, I have all five shown in there, uh, usually put parentheses around the ones they're not using. So, and he ... I was told that wherever your driveway is is all that we're going to give you as far as an address, which is why, you know, getting this intersection, this driveway lined up as presented, that we weren't violating any ordinances that we've been told. We - we did everything to the regulations. Um, you know, it used to be had to have two ways in and out for the fire trucks. That was just something everyone was wanting. So we were trying to do everything and give them the address both. So I'm - I'm not sure when you say that another avenue is to go, I guess, discuss this with the - the 911 commission or someone, I don't know that they're necessarily changing all their rules when they say it has to be a driveway, which is why we saw- looked in the article and saw that you guys did have the power. It was recorded this way. Um, in fact, if you looked at the last ... The previous development plan- ... the address 3100 was still in the title block. I had to take it off of the plan itself, leave all the other four addresses on. So I, really, they're just, you know, it's always been that option, it seems like, on the plans, and we think that, you know, with Section 6-4, you could grant us that. But, but that's why it hasn't happened outside of this body before. So wha- so what you recommend is that we recommend a 3100 address i- irregardless of whether we put that road in there or not? Yes. Since it was on the plat, and you have that ability. And if, if 911 addressing committee holds true, that you can only be addressed where you have access, and that's the same as your front door faces one street, your driveway, on a corner lot, faces the other, you know, which address do you get? Typically, the residents gets to, I would think, would get to choose. But in this case, it's a business, and they're saying, "We're only letting vehicles come in off of Monarch. That's the only address you get." And, you know, the site's big enough, I think you can certainly see how to get in and out of this parking lot, regardless of how many- Yeah. ... access we have. Thank you. Any further questions? All right, we're turn it over to the Commission. At your pleasure. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chairman, sin- yeah, first of all, we've, we've been here before. I, I agree with Mr. Combs in the fact that we have delegated once before the, uh, addressing to the, uh, E-911 staff, and right now, I think it'd be in- inappropriate to take that away from them. Um, and, and, uh, I do not see, with, with that road, uh, I think it was constructed as a, what I'm gonna call limited access, and that a, another entrance there would, would, uh, could present problems, so therefore, um, if you're ready, I'm ready to make a motion. That's good. It's, it's up to you all. For what? Hm, Mr. Chairman, I move for a- approval of DP2009-34 Beaumont Farms, as, uh, stated and recommended by the staff, subject to the eight conditions, including the eighth one that says remove the entrance from Beaumont Center Circle, as per the approved development plan. Is there a second? Second. Motion's made and seconded. Any discussion? Mr. Chairman. Mike. Could we, um, maybe state a recommendation that we would be in favor of a 3100 address Beaumont Circle? Or just the Beaumont Circle address? I get to pick the number. Just a recommendation, not- I don't, I don't think it would be a problem if the Planning Commission wanted to request the addressing office to consider whether that was a possibility and just- ... simply ask them to consider it without revoking- ... their, their authority that's been delegated to them. I don't see- ... that that would be a problem. Would that be on a separate motion? I would do it separately. You, you said you'd do that separately? Okay. Yeah, I don't think it- Okay. Yeah, I don't think it makes sense as part of the approval. Okay. All right, you, you, you have your motion. It's been made and seconded. Are you ready to vote? Motion passes. Now, do you want to create the other motion? Mike, do you want to do that? 911 address. Uh, yes, sir. I, I, I would make a recommendation that the, uh, this plat be addressed 3100 Beaumont Circle, uh, just a recommendation to the addressing board. Okay. For consideration? All right, I hear your motion. I need a second. Second. Second. All right, start your voting. All right, so ordered. Thank you. What else do we have? Mr. Chairman- No other action items, Mr. Chairman, unless the Commission had anything to bring. The staff would just remind the Commission that you do have a work session next Thursday. Okay. 1:30. Mr. Chairman, I did have one thing. Uh, I think most of the commission members realize that you not only vacated here, but vacated the country for the last three weeks, uh, we're, I know we're glad you're back, but knowing that, uh, uh, you were gone, um, there are a couple pictures that show that, that at least you were thinking of us while you were gone. Oh, you rat. Yes. Any explanations? Once he was Oh, I'm gonna kill you and my wife both, 'cause that's the only way you coulda got your hands on those. Yes, there we are riding the pyramids and the goat, and the goat and camel, and, uh, and that's the head- We know what you were riding. And, and that's the headdress, and I do want the commission members that remember Jim Mayhan that served on this, we nicknamed him Sheikh, and I did bring you back a headdress. So he is official Sheikh now. But that, that was a trip of a lifetime, and we had a wonderful time, and, and it's kind of a surreal experience. And Mike, I definitely owe you one. We'll stand adjourned after that one. Look around. Everywhere you turn is heartache. It's everywhere that you go. You try everything you can to escape the pain of life that you know. When all else fails and you long to be something better than you are today, I know a place where you can get away. It's called a dance floor, and here's what it's for. So come on, vogue. Let your body move to the music. Hey, hey, hey. Come on, vogue. Let your body go with the flow. You know you can do it. All you need is your own imagination, so use it, that's what it's for. Go inside, for your finest inspiration. Your dreams will open the door. It makes no difference if you're Black or white, if you're a boy or a girl. If the music's pumping, it will give you new life. You're a superstar, yes, that's what you are. You know it. Come on, vogue. Let your body move to the music. Hey, hey, hey. Come on, vogue. Let your body go with the flow. You know you can do it. Beauty's where you find it, not just where you bump and grind it. Soul is in the musical. That's why I feel so beautiful. Magical. Life's a ball, so get up on the dance floor. Vogue. Let your body move to the music. Hey, hey, hey. Come on, vogue. Let your body go with the flow. You know you can do it. Beauty's where you find it. Beauty's where you find it. Greta Garbo and Monroe, Dietrich and DiMaggio. Marlon Brando, Jimmy Dean, on the cover of a magazine. Grace Kelly, Harlow, Jean, pictured as a beauty queen. Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers danced on air. They had style. They had grace. Rita Hayworth gave good face. Lauren, Katherine, Anna too. Bette Davis, we love you. Ladies with an attitude, fellas that were in the mood. Don't just stand there, let's get to it. Strike a pose, there's nothing to it. Vogue. Vogue. Vogue. Vogue. Ooh, you've got to let your body move to the music. Ooh, you've got to just let your body go with the flow. Ooh, you've got to just vogue. Why am I losing sleep over you? Reliving precious moments we knew. So many days have gone by, still I'm so lonely and I guess there's just no getting over you. And there's nothing I can do but spend all of my time, out of my mind over you. Within the prison walls of my mind, there's still a part of you left behind. And though it hurts, I'll get by without your loving, yet I guess there's just no getting over you. And there's nothing I can do but spend all of my time, out of my mind over you. Within the prison walls of my mind, there's still a part of you left behind. And though it hurts, I'll get by without your loving, yet I guess there's just no getting over you. And there's nothing I can do but spend all of my time, out of my mind over you.