. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We'll call this meeting to order. We have two sets of minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of minutes from February 25, 2010 and March 11, 2010. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, when you see it, vote. Thank you. Postponements and withdrawals. Any postponements or withdrawals? I have an affidavit which states that the signage has been posted on site since April 2nd. We request a postponement of this item due to the order of meeting the two-week signage requirement to be rescheduled for the April 22nd Planning Commission meeting. So you're asking for a two-week postponement? Yes, sir. All right. Mitch Sally, that's the? That's your zoning meeting later this month. Staff has no objection. Okay. That's April 22nd? It is, yes, sir. Okay. All right. There's been a request for a two-week postponement to the April 22nd meeting. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to object to this postponement? Seeing none, there's none from the staff. The chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement until April 22nd of DP 2010-13. Is there a second? Second. Motion made and seconded. When you see it on the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I've got four to postpone with you all today. You want to tell us who you are for the record? Oh, yes. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Thank you. Page 1, item 1, plan 2010-13P, fairway lands unit 11, request a one-month postponement to the May 13th meeting. All right. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to object to this postponement? Seeing none, we'll look for a motion. Ms. Whitman. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement until May 13th of plan 2010-13P. Is there a second? Second. Motion made and seconded. When you see it on the screen, we'll vote. All right. Moving on. On page 3, item E, this is plan 2008-118F, Sand Lake and Estes properties, section 2, request a one-month postponement to May 13th. To what date, sir? May 13th. Anybody in the audience want to object to this postponement to the May 30th meeting? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of plan 2008-118F until May 13th, 2010. Is there a second? Second. Motion made and seconded. When you see it on the screen, vote. All right. To postpone, move on. On page 5, item D, this is DP 2010-15, Guest Property, Unit 8, request a one-month postponement to May 13th. Anybody in the audience want to object to this postponement? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of the Guest Properties DP 2010-15 until May 13th, 2010. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman. When you see it on the screen, vote. It's postponed to May 13th. And on page 6, item H, DP 2006-65, Blackford Property, Phases 1 and 2 amended, request a one-month postponement to May 13th. Okay. You've heard the request for postponement. Anybody in the audience want to object to this postponement? Yes, sir. I couldn't hear him. The gentleman asked if that means a vote on this matter will not happen until May 13th. If we postpone it, yes, sir. Okay. You've heard the, is there a motion to postpone? Mr. Chair. Mr. Craven. Move postponement of DP 2006-65, Blackford Property, until May 13th. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman. Any discussion on the motion? Did you want to speak to this motion? All right, sir. It's fine. All right. All those, when you see it on the screen, vote on it. It will be postponed to the May 13th meeting. Motion carried. Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Then I guess we'll move on to the consent agenda. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. There are two items I'd like to bring to your attention. Excuse me. Go ahead. Yes, sir. On page 3, item D, that is plan 2010-28F, Higbee Mill Reserve, section 2, lot 3G, staff did receive a letter from the applicant, an email requesting a one-month postponement to the May 13th meeting. All right. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak to this? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to postpone plan 2010-28F. What's the date, Mr. May 13th. To the May 13th meeting. Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. I'll move for postponement of plan 2010-28F until May 13th, 2010. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman, we'll vote when we see it on the screen. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 6, the top of the page, item E, DP-2010-16, Denton Farms, Ellerslie at DeLong, amended. We have received an email request to postpone this plan for two weeks from the applicant. Okay. You've heard the request from staff to postpone DP-2010-16 for two weeks. I assume that's the May 13th? No, sir. That would be your April 22nd zoning meeting. 4-22. All right. Anybody in the audience want to speak to this motion? All right, sir. When you chair, I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Whitman. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP-2010-16 until April 22nd. Is there a second? Second. Second, Ms. Richardson. Vote when you see it on the screen. Postpone until April 22nd. Is that all you have, Mr. Martin? Mr. King. Chairman, we have one more. A few minutes ago, staff was approached by council for the applicant of plan located on page 4 of the agenda. Middle of the page under item 3, development plans item A, DP-2010-8 Providence Place, track 3, lots 4 and 5, located at 2200 Newtown Pike. The applicant has agreed to a two-week postponement in order that we may meet with council. We hope to be able to resolve it in that time. And the applicant also wanted noted, which is correct for the record, that by agreeing to this postponement, that does not change the drop-dead date by which this commission must either approve or disapprove this plan, which as indicated on the agenda is June 1st of 2010. And the postponement will not affect that. In fact, we do hope to have it resolved much before then. All right. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak to this postponement? If not, then you've heard staff's request to postpone DP-2010-8 until the March 22nd meeting, April 22nd meeting. I'm having problems with my dates today. Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP-2010-8, Providence Place, until April 22nd. Okay. You've heard the motion. Is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded. Vote when you see it on the screen. We'll postpone to the 22nd. Okay. Mr. King, is that all you have? It's all good. So I guess we'll move on to the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. There are still a number of items I'm happy to report that do qualify for consideration at this time by the commission for your consent agenda. The first appears on page 2, item A. This is an amended final record plat. It's actually the 8th amendment. Bluegrass Business Park, also known as Pemberton Farm. This is for lots 4, 6, and 7, and this property is located at 2540 Spur Road. The next item on your meeting agenda, item B, is also the next item on your consent agenda. This is plan 2007-177F, Sharkey Property, unit 4. This property is located at Louis Place and Hatter Lane. The last subdivision plat on your consent agenda appears on page 3, item C of your meeting agenda, plan 2008-26F, Glen at Lockdale, unit 1, block C, lot 1 amended. This involves property located at 3652 Winthrop Drive. There are also four final development plans that qualify for consideration on your consent agenda. The first appears on page 5, item C of your meeting agenda, DP 2010-14, the RAS property, located at 333 South Upper Street. On page 6, item F of your meeting agenda, our next consent agenda item is DP 2010-17, Bluegrass Business Park, also known as Pemberton Farm, lot 4. This is located at 2540 Spur Road, a portion of. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 6, item G, DP 2010-18, Bluegrass Business Park, a.k.a. Pemberton Farm, lot 6. This also is located on a portion of 2540 Spur Road. The final item on your consent agenda appears on page 7, item I of your meeting agenda today. It is an amended zoning development plan, ZDP 2007-111, for the Glen at Lockdale, unit 4. This property is located at 3600 and 3652 Winthrop Drive, also at the corner of Man o' War Boulevard. Mr. Chairman, these items are eligible for consideration by the commission at this time on your consent agenda, unless a member of the commission or a member of the audience would care for a full discussion of any of these seven. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Mr. Sally, let me ask, is there anybody in the audience that wants to hear one of these and wants to pull it off the consent agenda? Then let me ask the commission, is there anybody on the commission that wants to pull one of these off the consent agenda and have a hearing? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion that we approve these on the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Paulson. Any discussion on the motion? If not, as you see it on the screen, we'll vote to approve the consent agenda as presented. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's see. We are moving right along here. Yeah, it's because you just came back. See, we're trying to keep you engaged. All right. What else do we have lined up here other than the? I don't see any. Do we have any performance bonds? I didn't see any. Steph is telling me apparently we did not get a memorandum. Oh, you have one at your place. You got one? Right here. Okay. All right. I think we've got one. I didn't know whether that was a surrender paper or what it was, Patrick. All right. Let me call your attention to the memorandum for the performance bonds and letters of credit. I assume there's no discussion on this. Chair will entertain a motion then to approve them as presented. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the release and call in bonds as stated in this memo. All right. Is there a second to Mr. Brewer's motion? Second. Motion has been made in second. Any discussion? If not, we'll vote to approve the performance and letters of credit. So done. All right. Are there any commission items? Yes, Mr. Chairman. We're ready for you. I hope you all don't have any hard questions because Solid Waste was supposed to be here at 2.30. I'll answer as many as I can, as much as I can. This is on the bottom of page 7 of your agenda. It's item A under the commission items, and it's PFR 2010-4, and it's a request made by Urban County Government Division of Waste Management for their improvements to the recycling facility on Thompson Road. The property is located at 360 Thompson Road. This is the property right here outlined in orange. Thompson Road is here. It goes up into Hinton Road here and Wayland Court here. Manchester Street is down here. And on the staff report, I've noted that this is Lexington Cemetery, but that's incorrect. That's Calvary Cemetery. Lexington Cemetery is across the road. This is generally in an industrial area, but there's an established neighborhood just to the north, which is the single-family residential zone right here. It's an older established neighborhood, and it's zoned R1C, and then the property itself is split-zoned I1 and I2, and it's mostly industrial zoning surrounding it, and then there's also a small amount of B1 zoning right there, and then the R1C is above to the north and the northwest. The property consists of nine acres, and just a little bit more than half of that is impervious area. It's either building or pavement. If you could put the site plan up, please. Manchester Street is down along here. We've got railroad tracks there and along Manchester Street between the property and Manchester Street. This is the existing building. Here's their parking area. This is where the new building is proposed, and then they're adding or redoing paving in this area and this area and this area. There's also a detention basin right there. The existing building is about 38,000 square feet in size, and it's a metal building. They're proposing another building, this right here, which is about 10,900 square feet, and the construction will be similar to a carport in construction. They're expanding their recycling capacity from 8 tons per hour to 24 tons per hour with this improvement, and there's no known opposition to the improvements as such, but there was a complaint back in 2007 from the adjoining property owner just to the north, the property that immediately adjoins this to the north, and it was a complaint about noise because they start doing the glass at about 6 o'clock in the morning, so he complained about the noise. He complained about trash blowing onto his property, and they tried to remedy this between 2007 and 2009, and finally they put up a 10-foot privacy fence along the rear property line here between that property owner's property and this property, and that has taken care of the situation. There's been no more complaints since 2009. There aren't any comp plan goals or objectives in opposition to this, but there is one that I guess you could construe as possibly being in opposition. It's Goal 19, Objective N. It says to enhance visual character of all major transportation routes, and there is no screening along the front of the property. There's a chain-link fence that goes along here, but there's just a teeny bit of plant material. Some of it's like honeysuckle and just real slim fence row material, and so that goal or the objective states to enhance the visual character of the transportation routes, and so there is nothing proposed along there, so that could be construed to be in opposition to this, but it's not necessarily in opposition to it. There are several goals and objectives in support of this, and those are all listed from the bottom of page 2 to the bottom of page 3 on your staff report. This property is just off of Manchester Street, and Manchester turns into Old Frankfort Pike at the intersection with South Forge Road, and Old Frankfort Pike is considered part of the Kentucky Scenic Byway System, and so this, like I said, it's a route into downtown, outside of downtown, and it's a major transportation route, so that would be why this could possibly be construed to be not in support of the comprehensive plan as far as that goes. The recycling center is right basically in the middle of where the distillery district is redeveloping. If you could put that third exhibit up, please. This is the West District, and this is proposed as part of the West District. This is actually the recycling property, and what they have noted on there is that it's proposed as loft housing as part of the distillery project, and obviously that can only be done if the urban county government doesn't own that property anymore and if the distillery district is able to purchase that property. The Thompson Road property, the recycling facility, is the only recycling facility that the urban county government operates, and that is part of a regional operation. We accept, or not landfill materials, but recyclables from several counties surrounding us, and what they would like to do is increase the capacity and truly become a regional facility, and they want to also be able to recycle everything that can possibly be recycled, and so that's why they're doing this, and the study was done, and it was determined that this site is not big enough to handle all of that, and so they have purchased a property out closer to the offices, the solid waste offices around New Circle Road, off of Old Frankfort Pike, and it's about 33 acres, and they're hoping to start construction on that in 2013, but the reason for that is because this site is just not able to handle everything that they want to do, but in the meantime, what they want to do is to add this building and add the paving so that they can continue to operate until that's done, and we see this as a cost-efficient way to handle this and to do this until the new facility is built. There are two basic principles that are contained in the comprehensive plan and endorsed by both the text and the goals and objectives of the plan. One is the need to provide adequate public facilities and to ensure their equitable distribution, and then that includes services such as roads, fire and emergency services, trash pickup, which includes the recycling, and then environmental stewardship and the protection of the environment. One of the statements in the comprehensive plan, which is actually in the transportation section of the plan, but it applies to all aspects of planning, states that the planning process for a metropolitan planning area shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will, among other things, protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns, and promote efficient system management and operations. So the increase in the recycling facility, we see this as supporting that. It enhances the system management and operations of the recycling facility as well as energy conservation and stewardship. We've recommended approval of this because with the exception of goal 19, objective N, it is supported by and in support of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Part of that recommendation is that if the distillery district develops before this new recycling facility is done, that they add landscaping or something to screen Manchester Street from the property. And then the other is that if the urban county government retains ownership of this property, and they do any further improvements, that it be done in a way that's mindful of the residential area that's behind or to the north of the recycling center. If you have any questions, I'm glad to try to answer them. Any questions for Ms. Riker? Marie? Ms. Riker, who's going to put the buffer up if the distillery district runs faster with development than our building the second plant? Well, we're recommending that that be done, and it's an urban county government property, so we're recommending that the urban county government do that. But we can't make them do that, but it's a strong recommendation that they do. And that's just in the event if the distillery district develops around this before the new center is done. And if they sell the property, then it will probably become part of the distillery district. Any other questions for Ms. Riker? Mr. Owens? Ms. Riker, what you're recommending or, I'm sorry, what the staff's recommending would be landscaping if the distillery district is developed? If the distillery district develops around, like, here and around here and around here and not this property that the urban county government put up landscaping along the front property line. Let me ask you this. What's fronting this property where the recycling center is? Right down here. There's a little bit of green stuff, you know, between the railroad tracks and Manchester Street, I guess. Right there? No. Down. There, yes. Right along here? Yeah. That's nothing of any consequence, is it, or do you know? I don't know. No, I just know that that's part of what has been proposed as the development plan for the TIF district. I guess my question, my concern, you know, I agree with the fact that some sort of landscaping needs to be done. In looking at your paragraph where it reads staff recommendations, part of it is, you know, enhance the visual character of all major transportation routes. Should the recommendation just be left to include the landscaping, whether the distillery district goes in or not, considering the major transportation route? It seems like with just this improvement, I mean, landscaping has never been there. It's just been a chain link fence. With this improvement, which is just basically a carport building in the front, if they're planning on moving or starting construction on the new thing by 2013, it's existing, and it's hard to justify making them do, I think, landscaping until the distillery district does redevelop. Do they expect to get into the new place, you know, if it's built, within that year? It's going to be more like a year of construction. They're planning on starting construction in 2013. I don't know if I made that clear, but that was the year that they hoped to start construction. So it would take probably, and that would be phase one. So I don't know how it's phased. That would be something that solid waste could answer for you. My only thought would be at least have the recommendation as it's worded, if not stronger considering the fact that it is a major transportation route. Well, you're free to make that recommendation. It is a major transportation route, and, you know, if we're doing this, if the city is doing this, maybe we need to be leading by example. Ms. Colburn. That's right there where I go to pick up mulch, free mulch. So I know the site. And if I were thinking about being a tenant in the distillery district, I wouldn't want to look over there at that when, you know, a few pine trees scattered up and down through there along that chain link fence would certainly help the visual appeal from a car because it goes uphill. So a five-foot pine tree in the right place could look like a ten-foot pine tree because of the visual going up the hill. Anyway, I think it's a deterrent to developing the distillery district if we don't put up a screen whether they increase it or not, whether they build the carport facility or they don't build it. I just think that it is something we ought to think about doing, whether we have to do it or not. But it just seems like it's a deterrent to the development and the positive look of a going concern of the distillery district. I can't say that I disagree with that. But if, well, say, for example, they don't put the carport thing up there, we wouldn't have any way to make them do that anyway. But with this public facility, you can make that as a recommendation and state it as strongly as you can, as you want to. But it's the urban county government property and they're exempt from zoning requirements and this property has been this way for years. I know, but we serve the public. We're the conscience of the public, so to speak. And it seems to me that Mike and I both agree. I do agree with you. I do. Any other questions, Ms. Riker? If not, Ms. Richardson. Do we have any idea what the plan is, a master plan for development of that portion of the distillery district? I mean, do they have a timetable of any kind? I don't know the answer to that. I don't know. My recollection was that the west district is phase two. At least, yeah. If not three. If not three, phase one to the east actually has two phases. You may recall where the current development is happening. Then they have a high rise and a garage proposed close to Newtown Pike, which they consider phase two of that portion of the distillery district. And this is a future phase for that development. Probably the east district. Probably after 2013, 14, 15. Probably. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I wondered if staff might know, has the TIF been approved for the distillery district to the legislature? It has. That's good news. Any other questions, Ms. Riker? You know, the only comment I'd want to make on that is that that's not the only piece of property that's going to have a lot of improvement to make that work. Right. And so my hope would be that as it goes out, that both sides of the road would. We've got some junkyards and things like that that's not going to be part of the district. Ms. Riker, if I remember right, then we just recommend that we state this is in compliance? If you feel that it is, yes. And if you feel that there's something that should be done to make it more in compliance, say for example, that goal 19 objective N, if you think that they should put landscaping in, you can put that as part of your motion. I'll leave that up to commission to make that part of their motion if that's what they want to do. Any other discussion? Yes. Could we have a proposal and a cost proposal and sort of look at this rather than just jumping in and saying do something, having some sort of potential plan for what we would like to have happen there? Like minimum screening or pine trees on 20-foot centers or something? Just so we, since we don't, we can't go to a zoning ordinance. No. All we're doing is hearing the proposal. Mr. King, do you want to respond to that? I was going to comment. Again, there is no requirement for this commission to review the site plan or to commission anyone to prepare a landscape plan. Again, I think if the commission thinks that that needs to be done or should be done, you can make that part of your package of recommendations that would then be considered by the administration and the council as they move forward with the funding of this project. So it needs to stay. Yes. Any other discussion? If not, then the chair will need a recommendation that this does meet the goals and objectives, and if you want to put the recommendation in, we'll do it at that time. Mr. Owens? Yes, sir. If there are no other questions, I'll move that this recommendation, which is this public facility review of 2010-4, the LFECG recycling facility is in compliance with the 2007 comprehensive plan, as stated by the staff, and ask for approval. As recommended by the staff, recommending, as they have suggested, in order to be in compliance with goal 19 objective N, to enhance the visual character of all major transportation routes, that landscaping be installed. And I would ask on this that a site plan for this be brought to us. Can't do that, I don't think, Mr. Owens. Can't do that. Mr. Chairman, that is not under the commission scope of the program. Well, strike that last little part there. Yeah, you were doing great. You got the last part. Lynn? We cannot ask them to bring it back. Just realizing that they have the authority to not do it. But we could respectfully request, could we not? I guess you could respectfully request that the department of, appropriate department of the government, bring their site plan or bring a site plan and present it to you. We could set that up at a work session or something like that. That site plan is respectively requested. So moved. You heard the motion. Do you understand the motion? I need a second. I think it's on the record. Do you really want Mr. Owens to repeat the motion? All right. You've heard the motion. You've heard the second. We are recommending that this is in compliance with the 2010 comprehensive plan with the recommendation as presented. All those in favor, vote when you see it on the screen. Motion passes. By way of follow-up, Mr. Chairman, the staff will communicate that to the appropriate government department in writing. And if they agree, we will schedule it for one of your future work sessions. All right. Thank you. Is there anything else that needs to come before the commission at this time? No. The staff would note one correction on the agenda for the record. Under the next meeting dates, the last item indicating that your subdivision item public meeting being May 11th, that is obviously, as you have done many times today, postponed things to May 13th. Typographical error. All right. Now, you also want to talk about we have a work session next Thursday? Yes, we do. We have a work session next Thursday in this room, as you know. And at that work session, we will be having the full conversation about the text amendments for the so-called student housing density related text amendments. So those of you that have been following that, interested in that, we will be doing the full presentation in advance of your public hearing, which is scheduled for the April 22nd. And I would encourage everybody to come, because we really, for a public hearing, we need to be on the same page with this. And we need to hear the presentation. And we appreciate you coming and becoming involved in it. Anything else, Mr. King, Mr. Salih? No, sir. Then we're adjourned. I love you. Wild thing Wild thing, I think you move me But I want to know for sure So come on and hold me tight You move me Wild thing You make my heart sing You make everything move me Wild thing Come on, come on, wild thing Shake it, shake it, wild thing Flying on the floor Taking me to places I've never been before And I can feel it, feel it, feel it Way down where the music plays Way down I can tie it away Way down where the fire plays Way down Way, way on down Way on down Ooh, my heavy spell You got me in your spell A hundred magic fingers Swirling carousel Better sooner than me A doctor could prescribe That love is doing something That others can't describe And I can feel it, feel it, feel it Way down where the music plays