# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - April 22, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · April 22, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1342 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1342?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-04-22 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 7,365 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on April 22, 2010, at 1:34 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Frank Penn presiding. The meeting addressed three agenda items in total, all of which resulted in approval: DP 2010-8 (Providence Place, Tract 3, Lots 4 & 5), DP 2010-13 (Morningside Market), and DP 2010-16 (Denton Farms, also known as Ellerslie at Delong). Over the course of the meeting, three motions were made and voted upon, and one public comment was heard. All development plans before the Commission were approved, reflecting a fully resolved agenda with no items tabled or denied. ## Attendance The following members were present at the April 22, 2010 Commission meeting: - Patrick Brewer - Marie Copeland - Ed Holmes - Mike Owens - Derek Paulsen - Frank Penn - Carolyn Richardson - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Joan Whitman - William Wilson **Absent:** Mike Cravens No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took three votes during the April 22, 2010 meeting, all of which passed unanimously by voice vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. - **DP 2010-8 — Providence Place, Tract 3, Lots 4 & 5** [timestamp: 0:46:53]: Mike Owens moved and Carolyn Richardson seconded approval of the development plan. The motion passed 10–0, subject to the first 13 conditions as listed on the agenda, with conditions 14 and 15 deleted and condition 16 modified. Voting in favor were Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Derek Paulsen, Frank Penn, Carolyn Richardson, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Joan Whitman, and William Wilson. - **DP 2010-13 — Morningside Market** [timestamp: 0:54:11]: Carolyn Richardson moved and Derek Paulsen seconded approval of the development plan. The motion passed 10–0, subject to all 19 conditions as listed on the agenda. Voting in favor were Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Derek Paulsen, Frank Penn, Carolyn Richardson, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Joan Whitman, and William Wilson. - **DP 2010-16 — Denton Farms (Ellerslie at Delong)** [timestamp: 1:05:56]: Carolyn Richardson moved approval of the development plan. The motion passed 10–0, subject to 17 conditions, with condition 17 modified to specify no grading within 50 feet of the existing cemetery. Voting in favor were Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Derek Paulsen, Frank Penn, Carolyn Richardson, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Joan Whitman, and William Wilson. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period at this meeting. - **Dr. Barbara Poole** spoke at [timestamp: 29:18] regarding boundary fencing and screening. Dr. Poole raised concerns about increased liability and security risks to her equine layover facility. Specifically, she cited the removal of a berm as a contributing factor to these risks and requested that the Commission consider providing additional fencing and screening to address the issues created by that removal. ## Contested Items One item drew community opposition during the meeting, centered on boundary fencing and screening conditions related to Providence Place. - **Issue:** The dispute concerned the removal of a berm and the adequacy of fencing and screening along the boundary of the Providence Place development. - **Who was involved:** Dr. Barbara Poole appeared before the Commission to voice her objections. Dr. Poole operates an equine facility adjacent to or near the development and raised concerns about the impact the berm's removal would have on her property and business. - **Nature of the opposition:** Dr. Poole argued that removing the berm would expose her equine facility to increased liability and security risks. She requested that additional fencing and screening be required as a condition of approval to mitigate those risks and provide an adequate buffer between the development and her facility. - **Outcome:** The structured data does not indicate a final resolution or specific Commission action taken in direct response to Dr. Poole's request. ## DP 2010-8: Providence Place, Tract 3, Lots 4 & 5 [timestamp: 13:28] The Commission took up discussion of development plan DP 2010-8, concerning Providence Place, Tract 3, Lots 4 & 5. Key speakers during this agenda item included Tom Martin, Matt Carter, and Dr. Barbara Poole. The discussion centered on conditions for approval of the development plan, with commissioners and participants also raising concerns related to boundary fencing and screening requirements for the subject lots. The item was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. --- *Note: The available structured data for this item is limited. For full details on the specific conditions debated, the nature of each speaker's contribution, and the precise terms of approval, viewers are encouraged to consult the meeting video beginning at timestamp 13:28.* ## DP 2010-13: Morningside Market [timestamp: 47:40] The Commission took up agenda item 2, a discussion of development permit application DP 2010-13 concerning the Morningside Market adaptive reuse project. Key speakers on this item included **Tom Martin** and **Harvey Johnson**, who participated in the presentation and discussion of the proposal. The item centered on the conditions under which the adaptive reuse project would be approved, with commissioners and presenters working through the specifics of those conditions during the discussion. The application was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. *Note: Additional detail on the specific conditions debated, concerns raised, and the full scope of the presentation is not available in the provided source materials.* ## DP 2010-16: Denton Farms (Ellerslie at Delong) [timestamp: 54:46] The Commission took up Agenda Item 3, a discussion and action on an amendment to the development plan for Denton Farms, located at Ellerslie at Delong. The amendment centered on proposed changes to the number of condominium units and single-family lots within the development. Key speakers on this item were **Chris Taylor** and **Sarah Tuttle**. The discussion covered the specifics of the proposed amendments to the development plan, including the adjustments being sought to the unit and lot counts. The item was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. *Note: The available structured data for this item does not include a detailed breakdown of the specific unit numbers proposed, the arguments made for or against the amendment, or any individual concerns raised during deliberation. For a full account of the discussion, the meeting transcript or recording beginning at approximately 54:46 is recommended.* --- ## Decisions - **DP 2010-8** — passed (10-0): Approval of development plan for Providence Place, Tract 3, Lots 4 & 5 - **DP 2010-13** — passed (10-0): Approval of development plan for Morningside Market - **DP 2010-16** — passed (10-0): Approval of development plan for Denton Farms (Ellerslie at Delong) --- ## Full transcript ДИНАМИЧНАЯ МУЗЫКА ДИНАМИЧНАЯ МУЗЫКА ДИНАМИЧНАЯ МУЗЫКА ДИНАМИЧНАЯ МУЗЫКА ДИНАМИЧНАЯ МУЗЫКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА МУЗЫКАЛЬНАЯ ЗАСТАВКА dated April 8, 2010. First, are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? If not, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, I guess, vote on the machine. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. I never thought I'd be faster than a computer, but I guess I am. Postponements and withdrawals. Are there any postponements or withdrawals today? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to land subdivision items. I guess our first on our development plan on Providence Place, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the first item on your agenda is development plan 2010-8, Providence Place, track 3, lots 4 and 5. This is a development plan for property that is located off Providence Parkway, which is north of the interstate with its intersection with Newtown Pike. Eventually, of course, Providence Parkway will be constructed over to Russell Cave Road. You have seen some recent development plans for the southern portion of this property, most recent of which would have been the motel construction in this area that gave us Hackney Place that comes through here into Providence Parkway. The proposal that you see before you today is a 10,000 square foot office building and a 106,000 square foot manufacturing distribution center with associated parking. You can see here is Mary Fay Place, which is a local street connection that is intended not only to serve this development but eventually provide connections to the north, to the ED property that is north of the subject property. Here you have a proposed access easement that will provide access ultimately to this piece of property and back to the proposed pump station or the regional sewer pump station that's located up in this area just off of the property near the urban service boundary. This plan was originally recommended for postponement due to concerns about the plan meeting initially the minimum requirements of the ED zone. There were standard conditions that were applied to this plan that you can see on your agenda. These were, of course, standard sign-offs for engineering, addressing, urban forester, pedestrian planner, and similar sign-offs. There were several resolution items, and that is to note the sanitary sewer, temporary construction easement, and resolve the proposed access easement turning radiuses. These again were fairly straightforward cleanup conditions that affected this plan. It would be interesting to note that one of those conditions is to denote that Mary Fay Place must be constructed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy that is consistent with the waiver that this body granted for this street on a previous action. The sewer easement is also related as well to a waiver this body granted to this property, and that sewer is going to have to come across here and then come here to serve the property, and at the time the plats were approved, you granted a waiver. There are three discussion items, one of which, number 14, discuss exactions due at time of building permits, which was a reference on the plan to note 14. As of late yesterday afternoon and this morning, that issue has been resolved. There was a discussion about the amount of exactions due on the property. There was a discrepancy in the amount. It has been determined that the discrepancy in the amount of exactions due can in fact be transferred to the remainder of the property, and that has been agreed to by the principal involved. Staff is comfortable now that we have resolved that exaction issue. The 15th condition is discuss the landscape berm and its relationship to proposed parking. Initially, that berm was not indicated on a previous plan, and staff wanted it very clear that that berm, which is very large, would inhibit the appropriate development of this property. They have acknowledged its existence. It is no longer going to exist when this property is developed. It will have to be graded and go. So we feel like that's been addressed as well. We do have a 16th condition. This rose directly from the Subdivision Committee's concern about the appropriate buffer between the existing use to the north of the property and this proposal. The existing use, again, to the north of the property is a veterinary operation along with a holdover for horses and that sort of thing that are receiving care, and there was concern about the appropriate relationship. Your ordinance only requires vehicular use area screening along this area due to the fact that they're zoned the same. This is also ED property. There is a large utility easement in this area of about 20 feet that does assist somewhat in separation of these properties. You have in all that paper that we handed out to you, planning staff did late this morning receive a letter from the neighbor. That's Dr. Poole, who's the immediate neighbor to the north. And on the final page of that letter, we highlighted her proposal. So you can see what she has requested to be done to buffer her property. As of this time, staff was under the understanding that Dr. Poole would be here. I have not seen her. She's here. Oh, she's here. Wonderful. Well, good. I'm glad she's here. It was our understanding that she would be here. Well, that issue to date has not been resolved. Now, I would like to go to your A and B compliance report. Again, this is a handout in tan that you have before you, the A and P compliance report. Now, at the time that this report was filed or prepared, pardon me, the exaction issue had not been resolved. We did not, again, because that resolution was taking place late yesterday evening and this morning, we did not revise your report. You will see in the body of your report in the conclusions that we do believe that this plan meets the future land use and community design elements of the EAMP. And that relates directly to the fact that ED is the recommended land use in the area. This is ED. Furthermore, the orientation of the building to the streets, the location of the parking behind the buildings, the use of the topography are all community design elements and it is consistent with those aspects. Now, we had concern at the time that the infrastructure element was not being met. There are two infrastructure elements recognized in the EAMP that affect this plan. One is Providence Parkway, which has been constructed. The other is the regional pump station and the trunk line to serve that. Now, those have not been built yet and they will be built. Staff is not aware of the exact schedule at this time. And what has been done with other properties in the area in order to serve the properties with sewer is that they're utilizing the existing system, which is south of the property at Stanton Way, down by the Cracker Barrel. It is also staff's understanding in conversations with engineering that they're not aware of any problems with that system. Now that we have reached a resolution of the exaction problem, we believe that they are in compliance with the infrastructure, are significantly in compliance with the infrastructure element of the EAMP. Obviously, until the pump station is built, no one out there is going to be in full compliance with the infrastructure element. And, of course, that is something that's not under the applicant's control. And with that, if there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, let me ask you on these lists, do you want to just delete number 14? I believe you could delete 14 and 15, Mr. Chairman. All right. And then leave 13 as denote or resolve? Number 13 is a denote. Okay. Yes, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Phillips? Do we have information on the specific use that's proposed in the manufacturing facility? No, ma'am, we do not. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter. I'm with Vision Engineering, and I'm representing the applicant. To start off with, I would like to submit an affidavit and photographs stating that we have put up the sign advertising the hearing as required. And on two other occasions, we had to update the sign due to postponements. Bill, do you need these? As far as the conditions go, we are in agreement with the staff's recommendations for items 1 through 13 and omitting 14 and 15. Item 16 refers to the boundary fencing and screening. And after the last hearing, which I believe was on the 8th, the applicant and the adjoining land owners got together out and discussed what they could do to resolve this issue. And at that time, they decided that the trees would be planted 45 foot on center and that the applicant would furnish a diamond mesh fence that would go on a fence that's being constructed by the adjoining property owners. And from that conversation, the applicant had written up an agreement and forwarded the agreement to the adjoiner, and it has not been signed to date. Bill, would you like a copy of this for record? Some of the things that the adjoining property had asked for, in addition to what they had previously discussed, was adding a third fence. And I don't know too many horse farms that have three fences. Currently, they have two fences separating the property, and they're asking for an additional third fence. The applicant does not wish to do that. They're also asking for a continuous hedge with trees planted seven feet on center, and the applicant does not wish to do that either. He has agreed, or he proposes, that instead of doing the diamond mesh fence, he will do a continuous hedge in lieu of that. The owner is here, if you have any questions for him, and I believe Dr. Poole is here as well. Are there any questions for Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter, are you saying that the applicant is okay with putting up a second fence? I presume the Pooles, the neighbors, have one fence, he's acceptable in putting up a second fence? No, what it is, is the Pooles are putting up a fence on the property line, and then you step back in their property, and they're, a paddock will have a fence around it, similar to you see horse farms all over the county. And what they were asking is that he comes back on his property and puts a third fence. And the ordinance does require parking lot screening, which would call for a hedgerow and trees at some certain spacing, wouldn't be 7 foot, usually it's 30 to 40 foot, maybe 45 foot, I'm not sure what they are, but he's agreed to put that hedgerow along the parking lot. Since you're here, I'm sure we're going to hear from the neighbor, but since you're here, do you think the applicant would agree to splitting the cost of that second fence? Well, the applicant has agreed initially to putting diamond mesh fence, which is the wire fence, up on the existing fence that they're building, so that was his original. Thank you. Any further questions, Mr. Carter? Is that all you have for us? Yes, sir. All right, sir. Any questions, any statements from the audience, anybody want to address this? If you will, state your name and your address, please. My name is Barbara Poole, and I'm the property owner just north of 2300 Dewtown Pike. We're here today for some consideration, in lieu of the fact that we've owned this property since 1991, excuse me, we've had an existing agriculture use since 1991, and we started an equine layover facility in 2008 that was pre-existing to this, the new development plan. Mr. Rasnick and I did have a chat after the last meeting and had come to some terms, but secondary to our meeting and some telephone calls between Mr. Rasnick and my husband, he wasn't sure that he could do what he had agreed to do. He wasn't sure he could take the trees off the berm right now. He wasn't sure he wanted to put the expense into the fence at this particular time and ask that we buy the fence and at some point he would reimburse us, which we are not willing to do at this point. We have one property fence in existence right now that has the poles and a top plank on it. It's incomplete. And we had discussed with him maybe putting up some diamond, this diamond mesh fence, which turned out to be a bit more expensive than he was anticipating. So in lieu of coming to an agreement, we wanted you to consider the changes that are going to be made in the increased liability to our business. This berm is a beautiful berm. We're completely under the understanding that it needs to be removed. We understand that. But with the loss of this berm, we increased liability from people, traffic, noise, wind, debris flying over the fences. Our facility, for the most part, houses high-dollar horses, primarily thoroughbred, but we get World Cup game people coming in, we get Rolex people, show horses from all across the country you're in, teams from Canada, so on and so forth. We also have a high percentage of our business is thoroughbreds from the sales. These thoroughbreds, for the most part, haven't been out in a while. They're very flighty and they're a danger to themselves, and losing this visual barrier is going to be an increased risk to a horse running through a fence and hurting himself. We're also very concerned about once that berm is gone and we are completely exposed to the public, for people associated with this new development, people associated with hotels, tourists, having direct access to horses. The way we are set up right now, the security in our farm is really, it's good. That berm, we don't worry about people coming over the berm at night, we don't worry about equipment disappearing, we just don't have a problem. We kind of feel like once the berm is gone, we're going to have a real problem with, and this road, of course, is going to come right into the back of my barn, it's going to be a high risk for people just to walk onto the farm. And it's also a high risk to the people who think that these horses are feedable horses. Not only does my liability increase because of the care of the horses, my liability is going to increase because of people getting hurt. So we're certainly open to compromise, and that was one of the reasons I asked that this proposal be considered. We're not asking for a third fence, right now we have one fence, and we do have some paddocks but not up close to this fence. The diamond mesh is very expensive, so we have in writing proposed to you that he just put up a four-plank fence, which is very consistent with what the city wants the development to be. They do not want to lose, it's my understanding, they don't want to lose the horse appearance, the horse farm appearance. And then some sort of a visual barrier behind that fence. And we asked that the fence be put up close to the parking lot when we talked to Mr. Rasnick, he suggested that if he had to put up a fence, it was going to abut mine. Which is, that's okay, it's his property, he can certainly do that, but it becomes difficult to maintain it, to mow it, to weed it. And it also puts a chain link fence or whatever he puts, it might put it right in direct contact with the horse, where they're going to be tearing up his fence. We would propose that his fence be closer to the parking lot, it's to keep people from crossing over, it leaves room where the storm sewer already exists. We suggested Leland Pines, we're not, that's not an absolute, but we did some research and you can buy Leland Pines very inexpensively when they're small. They grow very quickly. They're not a great big wide plant, so in the space that he has for a visual buffer, it leaves plenty of room for mowing, weed eating, getting larger equipment in there to maintain it. If you put white pines, which is what he suggested, they grow so thick that at some point we're concerned if you plant some too close to the fence, they're going to grow through the fence. You can't just chew on them and then they become a visual problem. They're not as nice looking and I think they decrease the value of what you're trying to do. So, we're certainly open to compromise. These were just suggestions. But the fact that we were pre-existing, we would like it to be a matter of public record and to be considered. Any questions for Ms. Poole? Thank you. Yes, sir. Hello. I'm John Rasnick. I'm the managing member of New Providence Place, the developer. There's actually two of us. Lot 4 is a company called Colonial Claims. That is to be their training center and I represent Lot 5. I'm sorry, I didn't get to talk to Dr. Poole before this. I think we've got a little bit of a misunderstanding. I agree with most of what she's saying here. I just want to make it clear. Unfortunately, I only brought one copy of that agreement with me and I think he gave it to you. Can I have it back just a second? It's right over here. It's made to round. Dr. Poole, both of you, as I speak to the group here, there may be some misunderstanding, but we were right. We'll write a check for the wire. It is a little higher than what we thought, but I know how that goes. So we're willing to just, if they want to put that wire up on the fence that they're installing now, we'll pay for the wire. I've given an amount. It's fine with me. We just think three fences are too many fences. I don't have any, Mr. Colonial Claims folk on Lot 4 may build their building fairly soon. We don't have, we're not going to be doing anything on Lot 5 in some while. We're talking to a few people, but I'd say that's down the road a ways. As to that berm, the berm has to come down. We can't get our parking in with the berm there. I'm told, and it's in this agreement, that if the Poole's want the trees that are currently on the berm and the city doesn't, somebody at the city doesn't cause me a problem for letting them have it, they can have the trees now that's on the berm if they want to plant them over on their side of the fence. I don't really want to plant them on my side of the fence because that's a drainage easement and there's a big storm pipe in there and I want to be able to get into it and maintain it and mow it. The hedge is okay. I don't mind adding the hedge. I guess my counter would be we'll put up that wire fence for, we'll pay for half their fence or whatever the wire part of it is, $1,800 for their fence. If they want or if they prefer, we'll put up a hedge row and move the trees in to 30 feet. We'll plant them all on our side of what is the sewer, which will be 10 feet off her fence so the trees don't grow over to her horses and I'll let her help me pick out the kinds of trees that won't cause problems for her horses. I think my agreement says that, but we're willing to compromise too, Dr. Poe, whatever works here so we can go forward. Have I made myself clear? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Are there any questions for Mr. Resnick before he leaves? I feel like the guy playing let's make a deal here, but is Ms. Poole still here? Is this agreeable with you? I'm not sure. I think we're talking almost the same thing, but I'm not exactly sure. I don't mind putting up the hedge and I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll go ahead and pay you for the wire, but we can't put up the hedge until we build the parking lot and that might be five years from now. I have no idea. Well, and I understand that. Our concern about it's not a third fence right now, it would be a second fence. Sure. And it's not to keep the horses out. It's another barrier to keep people from climbing over and it's also to keep cars from going off the parking lot and into. I guess we have one disagreement. If you will, take the mic with you because we're recording this. If I understand it, we have one disagreement. We don't mind helping them build the fence all along this property line and we don't mind adding the hedge to the edge of our parking lot. As to building a second fence inside our property, a horse fence, we think that's kind of redundant. But we will help her build this. We will put a hedgerow along the edge of the curb when we build the curb and she can have any of these trees if she'd like to have them. She can have these trees that's on this berm now if she'll move them at her expense unless the city doesn't want me to remove them until I remove the berm. Okay. That's up to the city. Before we go any farther, Mr. Martin, what about the zone-to-zone screening? I know it's the same zone. What type of screening would have to be there for a parking lot? There is only vehicular use area screening required. And that, I believe, is a tree every 40 feet. And there is a hedge, but it's generally of a low height. So what they're talking about would qualify for that? It would meet that requirement. In fact, what they're talking about should exceed the requirement. I have a question about the hedge. I'm getting kind of two understandings. From the plans, I'm seeing some cluster trees planted, but I'm hearing hedge, something solid that would be a more less permeable barrier in terms of people crossing over and that sort of stuff. I don't think just clusters of trees are going to protect my horses. I agree with the hedge. If he puts the diamond mesh wire on your fence and you put the hedge up, are you okay with that? Yeah. The last time that he talked to my husband, I thought they had decided some changes. It's too hard to get up with. I've been trying to get up with you over this. But I didn't think we really had much disagreement. We've agreed. You give me an invoice. We'll give you an invoice. The wire mesh, we'll pay you for that now, as soon as I gather up the money. We'll put the hedge when we build the parking lot. That's the plan. I want to address something else, too, for the record. We have a spot along that fence right now that we are using to put our used muck, and we compost that. We consider that a renewable resource. We use that compost landscape around our farm. It's not a commercial landscape. It's a facility. We don't sell it. But at some point, with no berm and no protective barrier, I feel sure somebody is going to complain about this compost pile. When that happens, that's going to be a huge added expense to my business to dispose of this straw. Our layover facility is one that keeps horses for one night or two nights, and we clean the stalls every single night. That's part of our arrangement. So the straw that we're putting in this pile is very lightly used and does not have much of an odor. But I would like it on the record that this has been here a while. It was here as an agricultural use before this development. And right now it's our intention to keep doing this. So I just want the prospective developers to be aware that this is here, and it's liable to be a nuisance. Thank you. And that is on the record. All right. Any other comment? If not, we'll close the public comments part of this hearing. I guess I need to get some direction from Law. How do we handle this boundary fence and screening? Do we accept their agreement? Well, since they have both on the record indicated that they're willing to, the developer will bear the expense of the diamond mesh on the existing posts and we'll be putting in a hedge, I would say we could just simply adapt condition 16 to acknowledge that. And that way it will be a note and will be of record to enforce that. So we'll keep 16 and just change the wording? That's what I would recommend. Might be able to offer an amendment to number 16 based on the discussion. Change the first word, discuss, to resolve. And then at the end, add a phrase, as discussed at this meeting. I think that will cover it. Thank you. Thank you. Are both parties okay with that? Ms. Copeland? Mr. Martin, don't we still need trees 40 foot on center or something? In addition to meet the zoning? I believe the vehicular use area screening does require trees. So we're going to have hedge because they agree to it and we're going to have trees because it's vehicular use screening. That would be my understanding. We may need to clarify that with Bill. I see Bill inspection agreeing. Okay. So just so there's no question, we're going to do both. Okay. All right. We've closed the public hearing part of this, turned over the commission for your pleasure. Mr. Owens? I believe we may be ready. If there's no other questions, I'll be willing to try and make this motion. I'll move for DP 2010-8 Providence Place be accepted with the now 14 conditions, the original 14 and 15 being deleted and changing number 14 to read resolve boundary fencing and or screening along the northern property lines of lots four and five as discussed at this meeting. You've heard the motion. Is there a second? Any discussion? If not, we'll vote when we see it on the screen. Mr. Chairman, apparently the recording is not properly functioning today. All right. We'll go back to the way I'm most comfortable. That's right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Martin, whenever you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. The next item on your agenda is on the first page, item two at the bottom, DP 2010-13, Morningside Market, Engle Property, Finance and Realty Company, Perry Lumber Company property. This is a preliminary development plan. It is located on National Avenue from the intersection with Walton Avenue, and this is just short of that intersection with Winchester Road. The proposed development that you see runs back along National Avenue, back to the hard turn here that takes you on back into the rear of the development, the property. This is North Ashland Avenue here, and, again, here's Gibbon Avenue, which is another connection into this area that is before you today. This is an adaptive reuse project. It was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. It was subjected to standard sign-offs. There were a significant number of cleanup conditions. Those were all of a very basic nature. The applicant is proposing this redevelopment or, pardon me, adaptive reuse in the B4 area to allow greater flexibility in bringing tenants into this area, and that is what that allows under the B4. There is just over 200,000 square feet of property you can see on the plan highlighted in purple. The associated parking is there as well. The other benefit of an adaptive reuse project is that it grants very, very significant relief on the parking. The only new building proposed is this building that you see here. This will be, when constructed, approximately 60,000 square feet. That's two stories, over two stories, along with associated parking. Again, there is a memorandum that has been distributed to you that is the staff report on the requirements of the adaptive reuse. This proposal has met four of the nine requirements that are outlined in your report. This is a preliminary plan. You will see final development plans on this property. They will address some very specific requirements as to pedestrian and street improvements and public space improvements and those sort of things that are an integral requirement of an adaptive reuse project. This plan was postponed at your last meeting for the sole reason that the applicant failed to properly post the sign on the property. They have since done so. They will be submitting an affidavit to that effect to you today. With that, if there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you. Harvey Johnson with CRP and Associates, representing the owner applicants. At this time, I'd like to submit the signage documentation, which met that two-week notice requirement. Excuse me, did you state your name for the record? Yes, Harvey Johnson. Thank you. Go right ahead, sir. We'd like to, we accept all the conditions and we request approval. All right, sir. Are there any questions for the applicant? You're comfortable with all the requirements? Yes, sir. And request approval. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this application? Mr. Martin, do you have anything else you want to add? Okay, sir. We'll turn it over to the commission then. Any commission items, discussion? Ms. Copeland. Mr. Johnson, the original, the business where you transacted business at Perry Lumber Company, that's not purple. Is that supposed to be purple? Or where Willis-Klein is now, that's not part of this arrangement? Where are we looking at? Over on Walton Avenue. That building, that's not part of this agreement? Okay. Any other questions? Ms. Richards. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2010-1. I'll just hold it a second. Have you got something you want to say, Mr. Johnson? That's actually, that was a different zone. That's why it's part of the properties of Walker Properties, but it's zoned differently. So that's why we've indicated a section line for the scope of the project. It's not included in, it is part of the property, but not included in this development. Any other questions? If not, we'll turn it over to the commission then. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2010-13, Morningside Market, along with the 19 conditions that were presented by staff. Is there a second? Second. Second, Mr. Paulson. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next item on the agenda is on page 2, item 3. It is DP 2010-16, Denton Farms, amended. This is the final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan for property located at 3900-4070 Richmond Road. The subject property is located between Richmond Road, Old Richmond Road, and DeLong Road. The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the number of condominium units by 17, as well as to increase their single family lots by 17. The condominium area is in this portion of the property. It currently has no final development plan for it. The overall plan for the property denotes the number of units that are allowed. The maximum number of units is set by conditional zoning, so they are reallocating units from their condos to increase the lotting in their single family area. Lots in this area are shrinking, getting smaller to accommodate those 17 extra lots. There were additional changes to the townhouse area related to building envelopes. A different builder is doing this area that is done. The already constructed area down in this portion. The subdivision committee recommended approval subject to 17 conditions as shown on your agenda. However, the applicant requested postponement at your last meeting primarily related to condition number 17. Since that postponement, the staff has met with the applicant to address many of the cleanup conditions that you see on your agenda. The area you see here is tough to tell, but they did shrink their building envelope, which was one of the staff's conditions on number 15. The previous envelope was much larger and allowed much greater leeway than typically planning staff is comfortable with on a final development plan. The major issue on the discussion item, the applicant agreed to a slight relocation of the single family lots in order to accommodate staff's concern regarding grading in the area of the cemetery. We have newly adopted cemetery protection measures. And while this plan was a previously approved plan prior to the adoption of those guidelines, or that portion of the ordinance, we did feel that it was important since the property was gaining single family lots in the area of the cemetery to address the no grading restriction that is in that ordinance. The applicant had a lot shown directly adjacent to the cemetery right here. The cemetery is in this area. We took a site visit to the site, and the location of the single biggest vault was in this area, as well as the green that you can see here is trees that are kind of surrounding it. We met with the applicant, and they were acceptable to basically taking this lot and moving it over to here. It gives it a greater buffer between the cemetery. That should leave sufficient room there. They have agreed to denote the 50-foot no grading restriction that we had discussed previously on this plan. Condition number 17, as a result of that, we felt could be revised to denote no grading within 50 feet of the existing cemetery. If you have any questions on that, I'd be happy to try to answer them for you. Any questions for Chris? I realize that this is a development plan approval, but was the conditional zoning granted based on the condominiums being located there, and is there a requirement for an amendment to the conditional zoning requirements as well? No, the conditional zoning sets forth the total overall density for the property. This portion just hasn't been in for a final development plan yet, though it does set out the maximum number of units. They have played with that through the course of multiple amendments. They're down to 110 condominium units. They've dropped it down by 17. They could revise it further if they end up tweaking this further, but there will be a separate plan for that. The conditional zoning restriction doesn't mandate where that is, though. Just for clarification, the conditional zoning spoke to overall development density of the parcel, per se, not individual phases or units. Mr. Tomes? Yeah, I had a question on, I guess, the connectivity of the cul-de-sac. That one there? The condos. Down in here? Yeah, it looks like there's only one way into the development. I really can't tell. Yeah, you enter into the townhouse area off of Ormsby, and it loops around through here as well as to that cul-de-sac. That doesn't connect back to Ormsby there. Again, I realize that's a tough intersection. That portion of the plan was not amended with this plan. It is previously approved. Any other questions for Chris? If not, the applicant. Ms. Tuttle? My name is Sarah Tuttle with Strand Associates, and I'm representing Barlow Homes. I just handed Bill our affidavits related to the posting of the sign, both originally and because it was postponed for the second time. We met yesterday with the staff related to the cemetery, and I've learned a lot about cemeteries in the last few days. It's not actually a vault that's out there. It is one of the old-fashioned, very large stones. It's not a headstone, not a footstone, but a flat stone that lays on the ground. There are a couple of other possible graves out there. There were graves moved to the Lexington Cemetery in 1941, and those graves were of Mary Ann and Paul or Peter Hunt, and Mr. Hunt died in 1852. So these are very, very old graves. What we have agreed to is that we will physically survey in the location of the graves that are evident and then provide a 50-foot buffer on the outside of the evident graves and flip the lots so that there will be no grading within that area. And we feel like that is a reasonable approach, given the fact that the streets are already there, and that's what we agreed to. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions for Ms. Tuttle? Lynn? Ms. Tuttle, I know that there are actually experts out there that find old graves. Have you guys employed someone who does that, or is this best guessing based on engineering and understanding the topography of the tract? I talked at great length with the general manager of Lexington Cemetery on Monday, because that's how I found out who was buried there. And he indicated to me that the only way to be 100% sure is to excavate. And that's we're proposing to leave this cemetery intact. If you go in with a grid, that's kind of defeating the purpose. We are going to go out and locate this headstone or two. I have not physically been out there, so I can't answer that. Bill has. But we're going to go, and apparently there are a couple of depressions out there. So we're going to go do the best we can. We've done this before. Am I an expert? No. According to Dan Scalf at the Lexington Cemetery, there are new sounding type electronic things that can be done. But he said, and I don't want to misquote him, but he was kind of like, you know, you're not sure. The only way to be really sure is to excavate. So we felt like maybe that wasn't reasonable. So we're leaving a buffer. That's kind of what we thought. And we're not even sure. There is this stone out here. But since these graves are so old, pre-Civil War, the anecdotal evidence is that the owners were moved and that any remains, which they're unknown who they might be, probably slaves. Not that that matters, but, you know, we have to be respectful. That's what I was asking is, I know there are people that have radar, sonar. I don't even know if it's something that can sense and define an outline. And Mr. Scalf said, yeah, there are. And, you know, I didn't quiz him on it to any great depth, but we did talk about that. Any further questions for Ms. Tuttle? We are in agreement with the rest of the conditions. Okay. I was going to ask you that. We are in agreement. All right. Thank you. All right. No further questions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anybody else want to comment on this one? If not, we'll turn it over to the Commission for their discussion. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I move. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2010-16, Denton Farms, with 17 conditions, changing number 17 to denote that there will be no grading within 50 feet of the existing cemetery. Heard the motion. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion approved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Before we start our next item, we'll take five and be ready to come back. Thank you. Thank you. උදු හැන්දකාර්තාවෙන් යුෂ වනු යුෂ වනු මම මිශ්රණය කෝපර් අත්තාපරන් කිරීමට එකතු කිරීමට කිහින් ඇත්තාපල් ක්ලික් කර අපි කිරීමට හොඳින් සහ මිශ්රණය අපි කැලික් හොඳින් කිරීමට එකතු වෙනස් සියීමෙන්ස් කැලුක්වර්ණයේ අපි කිරීම කැලික්න්දේ් කිරීම සහ අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි කිරීම සහ ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි අපි කිරීම සහ ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි කිරීම සහ අපි කිරීම අපි ස්තුතියි අපි කිරීම කිරීම අපි කිරීම කිරීම ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි කිරීම කිරීම අපි කිරීම ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි කිරීම ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි කිරීම ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි හොඳින් හීදින් කරන්න කරන්න එය ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි කරන්න කරන්න අපි ස්තුතියි අපි කරන්න අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි ස්තුතියි අපි කරන්න ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි ස්තුතියි