# Planning Commission Meeting - May 13, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · May 13, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1378 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1378?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-05-13 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 22,440 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 May 13, 2010, at 1:36 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Frank Penn presiding. The meeting addressed 16 agenda items spanning subdivision plans, development plans, bond releases, and scheduling matters. Of those items, the majority were approved, while three were tabled — PLAN 2010-13P (Fairway Lands, Unit 11), DP 2006-65 (Blackford Property, Phases 1 & 2), and DP 2010-15 (Gess Property, Unit 8) — and two were withdrawn prior to consideration: PLAN 2010-28F (Higbee Mill Reserve, Section 2, Lot 3G) and PLAN 2009-38F (The Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust). The Commission recorded 19 motions and votes over the course of the meeting and heard 2 public comments. No presentations are noted in the meeting record. ## Attendance The following members were present at the May 13, 2010 Commission meeting: - Frank Penn - Carolyn Richardson - Lynn Roche-Phillips *(arrived late)* - Joan Whitman - Marie Copeland - Derek Paulsen - Mike Cravens - Mike Owens - William Wilson - Ed Holmes **Absent:** Patrick Brewer Ten members were in attendance overall, with Lynn Roche-Phillips arriving late to the meeting. Patrick Brewer was the only member not present. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took the following actions during the May 13, 2010 meeting: **Postponements and Withdrawals** - **PLAN 2010-13P (Fairway Lands, Unit 11)** was postponed to June 10, 2010. Motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Joan Whitman; passed 9–0 by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:06:33] - **DP 2006-65 (Blackford Property, Phases 1 & 2)** was postponed to June 10, 2010. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson; passed 9–0 by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:07:44] - **DP 2010-15 (Gess Property, Unit 8)** was postponed to July 8, 2010. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Mike Owens; passed 9–0 by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:08:46] - **PLAN 2010-28F (Higbee Mill Reserve, Section 2, Lot 3G)** was withdrawn. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Joan Whitman; passed 9–0 by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:09:58] - **PLAN 2009-38F** was removed from consideration. Motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Joan Whitman; passed 9–0 by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:10:58] **Consent Agenda and General Items** - The **Consent Agenda**, excluding PLAN 2010-40F, was approved by voice vote. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Joan Whitman. [timestamp: 0:19:16] **Sand Lake 2008-118F — Waiver Requests (Roll Call Votes)** - A motion to **approve waiver requests** failed 5–5. Voting in favor: Ed Holmes, Derek Paulsen, Joan Whitman, Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens. Voting against: William Wilson, Marie Copeland, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Mike Owens, Frank Penn. [timestamp: 1:21:38] - A motion to **approve the waiver request dated March 31st** passed 6–4. Voting in favor: Ed Holmes, Derek Paulsen, Joan Whitman, Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Frank Penn. Voting against: William Wilson, Marie Copeland, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Mike Owens. [timestamp: 1:23:53] - A motion to **disapprove the waiver request dated May 5th** failed 5–5. Voting in favor: William Wilson, Marie Copeland, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Mike Owens, Frank Penn. Voting against: Ed Holmes, Derek Paulsen, Joan Whitman, Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens. [timestamp: 1:25:10] **Additional Approvals** - **PLAN 2010-40F (Sharkey Property, Unit 1)** approved by voice vote; motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Joan Whitman. [timestamp: 1:40:54] - **Waiver request for PLAN 2010-41F, 2K** approved by voice vote; motion by William Wilson, seconded by Joan Whitman. [timestamp: 1:48:59] - **Waiver request for PLAN 2005-196F** was withdrawn, followed immediately by approval of **PLAN 2005-196F (Sharkey Property, Unit 2B)**; both motions by William Wilson, seconded by Joan Whitman. [timestamps: 2:03:14, 2:03:45] - **DP 2010-22 (Tackett Property, Kroger Plaza)** approved by voice vote; motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Mike Cravens. [timestamp: 2:31:42] - **DP 2010-23 (Sharkey Property, Unit 2B)** approved by voice vote; motion by William Wilson, seconded by Joan Whitman. [timestamp: 2:36:31] - **Release and call of bonds** as written in the memorandum dated May 13, 2010, approved by voice vote; motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Joan Whitman. [timestamp: 2:37:35] **Scheduling Decisions** - The **May 27, 2010 meeting** was cancelled. [timestamp: 3:02:50] - The **May 20, 2010 work session** was moved to 1:00 PM. [timestamp: 3:04:39] - The **June 3, 2010 zoning committee meeting** was cancelled. [timestamp: 3:05:45] ## Public Comment Two individuals addressed the Commission during the public comment period. - **Jennifer Dobbs** [timestamp: 58:10] spoke about pedestrian access concerns related to a proposal under consideration. Dobbs raised safety issues and stated that the surrounding neighborhood had no desire for the proposed pedestrian access. Her comments reflected opposition to the access point on both practical and community preference grounds. - **Greg Jones** [timestamp: 1:02:47], representing the Lexington Division of Police, addressed security risks associated with the same proposed pedestrian access. Jones characterized the access point as a "leaky cul-de-sac," arguing that it could create conditions conducive to increased criminal activity in the area. His remarks framed the pedestrian access proposal as a public safety concern from a law enforcement perspective. Both speakers focused on the same issue — the proposed pedestrian access — with Dobbs emphasizing neighborhood opposition and safety, and Jones providing a law enforcement perspective on the potential for heightened criminal activity. ## Contested Items **Sand Lake 2008-118F Waiver Requests** The Commission reached a split vote on at least one of the waiver requests associated with the Sand Lake case (2008-118F), specifically concerning a waiver related to pedestrian access. The disagreement centered on safety concerns and opposition from the surrounding neighborhood. The divided vote reflects that commissioners were not in full agreement on whether the pedestrian access waiver should be granted, with concerns about the implications for neighborhood safety appearing to drive the opposition. The outcome of the vote was not unanimous, indicating meaningful resistance among commission members to approving the waiver as proposed. ## PLAN 2010-13P: Fairway Lands, Unit 11 [timestamp: 06:33] This agenda item concerned a plan for Fairway Lands, Unit 11. The item was brought before the Commission as a discussion item, with Rory Kahly identified as the key speaker. The plan was not advanced at this meeting due to a number of unresolved issues. Specifically, outstanding concerns regarding the geometrics for a proposed new cul-de-sac and tree protection had not yet been addressed to a point where the Commission could move forward with a decision. As a result of these unresolved matters, the item was tabled. The Commission postponed consideration of PLAN 2010-13P to its next scheduled meeting on **June 10, 2010**, at which point it is expected that the outstanding issues related to the cul-de-sac design and tree protection measures will have been resolved and can be more fully addressed. ## DP 2006-65: Blackford Property, Phases 1 & 2 [timestamp: 07:44] This agenda item concerning the Blackford Property development plan (Phases 1 & 2) received only brief consideration at the May 13, 2010 Commission meeting. Rory Kahly addressed the Commission on this item, noting that the applicant had requested a postponement. As a result, no substantive presentation, debate, or discussion of the development plan took place at this meeting. The item was tabled and continued to the June 10, 2010 meeting, where the Commission will have the opportunity to fully consider the proposal. ## DP 2010-15: Gess Property, Unit 8 [timestamp: 08:46] This agenda item concerned a development plan application identified as DP 2010-15, relating to the Gess Property, Unit 8. The item was introduced as a discussion item before the Commission. Rory Kahly was the key speaker associated with this agenda item. No substantive presentation, debate, or review of the development plan took place at this meeting. At the request of the applicant, the Commission agreed to postpone consideration of the plan rather than proceeding with a full discussion or vote on the merits of the application. The item was tabled and rescheduled for the **July 8, 2010** Commission meeting, at which point the application would be taken up for fuller consideration. ## PLAN 2010-28F: Higbee Mill Reserve, Section 2, Lot 3G [timestamp: 09:58] This agenda item concerned a plan for Higbee Mill Reserve, Section 2, Lot 3G, listed as Agenda Item 4. The matter was brought before the Commission as a discussion item. - **Key Speaker:** Tom Martin - **Outcome:** The plan was withdrawn at the request of the applicant. No substantive presentation, debate, or concerns were recorded for this item, as it did not proceed to discussion. The applicant requested withdrawal of the plan prior to any Commission review or action. ## PLAN 2009-38F: The Davis Family Children's Irrevocable Trust [timestamp: 10:58] This agenda item was briefly addressed by **Bill Sallee**, who explained that PLAN 2009-38F had been mistakenly included on the agenda. As a result, no substantive discussion, presentation, or debate took place regarding the plan. The item was withdrawn from consideration without any review of its merits, and no concerns were raised by commissioners or other speakers. The outcome was that the item was **withdrawn**, and the Commission moved on to other business. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 19:16] The Commission took up the consent agenda as a single item for approval. Bill Sallee was the key speaker during this portion of the meeting. The consent agenda was approved with one notable exception: item PLAN 2010-40F was pulled from the consent agenda and set aside for further discussion separately. The remainder of the consent agenda items were approved as presented. ## Sand Lake 2008-118F Waiver Requests [timestamp: 1:21:38] The Commission took up agenda item 7, concerning waiver requests submitted under case Sand Lake 2008-118F. The discussion was extensive, with key contributions from Tom Martin and Dick Murphy. The debate centered on two distinct waiver requests. A primary area of concern during the discussion involved pedestrian access and safety, which commissioners examined at length before reaching a decision. The Commission ultimately reached a split outcome on the two requests: - **ADA Compliance Waiver:** This waiver was **approved** by the Commission. - **Pedestrian Access Waiver:** This waiver was **not granted**, reflecting the concerns raised during deliberation about pedestrian access and safety on the site. The split result indicates that while commissioners were willing to grant relief on the ADA compliance matter, they were not satisfied that the pedestrian access waiver met the necessary standards or adequately addressed the safety concerns raised during discussion. ## PLAN 2010-40F: Sharkey Property, Unit 1 [timestamp: 1:40:54] The Commission took up Agenda Item 8, a resolution concerning PLAN 2010-40F for the Sharkey Property, Unit 1. Chris Taylor was the key speaker presenting and discussing this item before the Commission. The plan was approved, though not without conditions attached to the resolution. Specifically, the Commission required that cross-sections be corrected and that zoning restrictions be added to the plan. These conditions reflect the Commission's attention to technical accuracy in the submitted documents as well as the need to ensure appropriate zoning parameters were formally incorporated. The resolution ultimately passed with approval, subject to the fulfillment of those stated conditions. ## PLAN 2010-41F: Marshall Property, Unit 2-K [timestamp: 1:48:59] The Commission took up Agenda Item 9, a resolution concerning PLAN 2010-41F for the Marshall Property, Unit 2-K. Tom Martin was the key speaker during the discussion of this item. The plan was considered with conditions, notably including a waiver related to the timing of access easements. This waiver represented a specific accommodation within the approval, addressing when the required access easements would need to be established relative to the plan's progression. The Commission ultimately approved the plan with those conditions in place. ## PLAN 2005-196F: Sharkey Property, Unit 2B [timestamp: 2:03:45] The Commission took up Agenda Item 10, a resolution concerning PLAN 2005-196F for the Sharkey Property, Unit 2B. Tom Martin was the key speaker during this agenda item. Prior to the Commission's deliberation, a waiver request associated with the plan was withdrawn. The record does not detail the specific nature of the waiver that had been sought or the reasons for its withdrawal. The Commission ultimately approved the plan subject to six conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval are not detailed in the available record. ## DP 2010-22: Tackett Property, Kroger Plaza [timestamp: 2:31:42] The Commission took up Agenda Item 11, a resolution concerning Development Plan 2010-22 for the Tackett Property, Kroger Plaza. **Key Speaker:** Tom Martin **Outcome:** Approved with conditions The plan was brought before the Commission for consideration and was ultimately approved. The approval came with specific conditions attached, including: - **Compliance with big box guidelines** — the development is required to meet applicable big box retail standards - **Resolving easement conflicts** — any outstanding easement conflicts associated with the property must be addressed as part of the development process Tom Martin was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## DP 2010-23: Sharkey Property, Unit 2B [timestamp: 2:36:31] The Commission took up Agenda Item 12, a resolution concerning Development Plan 2010-23 for the Sharkey Property, Unit 2B. Chris Taylor was the key speaker on this item. The plan was presented for Commission consideration and included a finding related to the use of an access easement, which formed a notable component of the approval conditions. The Commission approved the development plan with conditions, including the finding for the access easement use. *Note: The available record for this agenda item is limited. Additional details regarding the full scope of the presentation, any debate among commissioners, or specific conditions attached to the approval are not reflected in the available structured data.* ## Release and Call of Bonds [timestamp: 2:37:35] The Commission took up Agenda Item 13, concerning the release and call of bonds. Carolyn Richardson presented the item, which was governed by the terms outlined in a memorandum dated May 13, 2010. The Commission approved the release and call of bonds as written in the May 13, 2010 memorandum. - **Presenter:** Carolyn Richardson - **Governing document:** Memorandum dated May 13, 2010 - **Outcome:** Approved ## Cancel Meeting on May 27, 2010 [timestamp: 3:02:50] The Commission took up Agenda Item 14, a resolution to cancel the meeting scheduled for May 27, 2010. Carolyn Richardson presented the item, which called for the cancellation of that upcoming meeting date. No significant debate or concerns were recorded regarding the cancellation. The Commission approved the resolution to cancel the May 27, 2010 meeting. ## Move Work Session on May 20, 2010 to 1:00 PM [timestamp: 3:04:39] The Commission took up Agenda Item 15, a resolution to reschedule the work session on May 20, 2010, to 1:00 PM. Carolyn Richardson was the key speaker on this item. The matter was straightforward in nature, involving an adjustment to the timing of an upcoming work session rather than a substantive policy question. No significant debate or concerns were recorded in connection with the proposed change. The Commission approved the resolution, confirming that the May 20, 2010 work session would be moved to 1:00 PM. ## Cancel Zoning Committee Meeting on June 3, 2010 [timestamp: 3:05:45] The Commission took up Agenda Item 16, a resolution to cancel the Zoning Committee meeting scheduled for June 3, 2010. Carolyn Richardson was the key speaker on this item. The resolution was straightforward in nature, with no substantive debate or concerns noted in the record regarding the cancellation. The Commission approved the resolution to cancel the June 3, 2010 Zoning Committee meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLAN 2010-13P: Fairway Lands, Unit 11 to June 10, 2010 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone DP 2006-65: Blackford Property, Phases 1 & 2 to June 10, 2010 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone DP 2010-15: Gess Property, Unit 8 to July 8, 2010 - **Motion** — withdrawn (9-0): Withdraw PLAN 2010-28F: Higbee Mill Reserve, Section 2, Lot 3G - **Motion** — withdrawn (9-0): Remove PLAN 2009-38F from consideration - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Consent Agenda excluding PLAN 2010-40F - **Motion** — failed (5-5): Approve waiver requests for Sand Lake 2008-118F - **Motion** — passed (6-4): Approve waiver request for Sand Lake 2008-118F dated March 31st - **Motion** — failed (5-5): Disapprove waiver request for Sand Lake 2008-118F dated May 5th - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve PLAN 2010-40F: Sharkey Property, Unit 1 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve waiver request for PLAN 2010-41F, 2K - **Motion** — withdrawn (0-0): Withdraw waiver request for PLAN 2005-196F - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve PLAN 2005-196F: Sharkey Property, Unit 2B - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve DP 2010-22: Tackett Property, Kroger Plaza - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve DP 2010-23: Sharkey Property, Unit 2B - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve release and call of bonds as written on the memorandum dated May 13, 2010 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Cancel meeting on May 27, 2010 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Move work session on May 20, 2010 to 1:00 PM - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Cancel zoning committee meeting on June 3, 2010 --- ## Full transcript ლასლობელი სათლაცბელი ვულთლი დღეარალი ასლიველიველიალინისელიალსე careful careful ვოინელიველინისილიუზლელრე მამილალიველირელლიმელისელიუზნიისელალისელტვისისელირე მ� ბ დ კ იასი მ ტშელინელნიდაშელინინი ლდალთისარინინნი მ მამრირიელისირისისისნისი ელინსისი რელი რელიუელინიყგდაშელიბიბიგდ დელი რელის სელირინსირელი ფელინინი რელიუელიგთნიუებირინი რელივის რელინინირის სელინინელირივინის 56 სანრრ just რელისრელირი რელისნირის რელისრი რელინირ რელა რელირი რელა равноგიშელ სოდელივი რელისყე მელყე� შელი჊ს რელის სთისorasრე სირელნიტვი სველისბი რელის სელირი სოდელ სისე Âზემე surtout რვაა ნგისალისოე სთყგინრისჩოე სთარრე ტჟღ�reten ყპლრისე შსერილერინოინრე სთყგინსე ტწერისერისოე საღებერერიტხე შეძერისხერისერირიშე� We don't have any minutes to approve, so we'll move on to postponements and withdrawals. Any postponements or withdrawals? Come forward at this time. Hi, Rory. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. On today's agenda, first page, item 1, this is Plan 2010-13P, Fairway Lands Unit 11. We request a one-month postponement to the June 10th hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to object to this postponement? Mr. Salih, June 10th is the right date? Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is the Commission's next meeting devoted to subdivision items. Chair Lindertayne, a motion to postpone this to the June 10th meeting? Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone Plan 2010-13P, Fairway Lands Unit 11 to the June 10th meeting. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor, vote on it when you see it on your screen. It is postponed to June 10th. Do you have any additions? On page 9, under your Development Plans, item A, DP 2006-65, Blackford Property, Phases 1 and 2, request a one-month postponement to June 10th. Again, is there anybody in the audience that wants to object to this postponement? If not, Chair Lindertayne, a motion to postpone it to June 10th. Mr. Chairman, I will move for postponement of DP 2006-65, Blackford Property, until June 10th, 2010. Second. All right, vote when you see it on the screen. That one is also postponed to June 10th. And on the top of page 10, item B, DP 2010-15, Guest Property, Unit 8, request a two-month postponement to July 8th. Mr. Salih, that is July 8th, is that the right? Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Anybody in the audience wants to object to this postponement? If not, Chair Lindertayne, a motion to postpone this to the July 8th meeting. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move postponement of DP 2010-15, Guest Property, until July 8th. Second. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor, vote when you see it on the screen. Okay, July 8th is a postponement on that. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, staff does have one item to bring to your attention. Mr. Martin. On page 3 of your agenda, item B, plan 2010-28F, Higbee Mill Reserve, section 2, lot 3G, for property located at 4204 and 4172 Reserve Road, we have received a request from the applicant to withdraw that plan. You've heard the request from staff for a withdrawal of plan 2010-28F. Anybody in the audience want to object to this? If not, then Chair Lindertayne, a motion for withdrawal. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for withdrawal of plan 2010-28F, Higbee Mill Reserve, section 2, lot 3G. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Vote when you see it on the screen. Plan 2010-28F is withdrawn. Mr. Salley. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. You will note we have a very long agenda this afternoon. We think we have an explanation for why it's so long. If I could refer you to the page 8, item R at the bottom of the page. Item R is plan 2009-38F, the final plan for the Davis Family Trust. Mr. Chairman, this item was mistakenly put on your agenda today. This is an item that was granted an extension at your meeting last month and was inadvertently copied to today's agenda. I do ask the commission to remove this from your agenda at this time. Do we need to do that with a vote? Probably would be good for the record, yes, sir. Is this a postponement? No, actually the commission approved this extension last month. So all we want is to remove it from the agenda? Yes, sir. All right, the chair will entertain a motion to remove plan 2009-38F from our agenda today. Mr. Chairman, I move that we remove plan 2009-38F from our agenda. Motion has been made and seconded. Vote when you see it on the screen. All right, is there any land subdivision items? Sally, I guess we're going to consent agenda. Yes, sir, we can review consent agenda at this time for no discussion items. I'm pleased to say that the consent agenda is also very long. To accompany your long meeting agenda, there are a number of items that do qualify for consideration on your consent agenda this time. The first appears on page two. It's item B on your meeting agenda. This is a preliminary subdivision plan recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. It's plan 2010-32P, sunny slope, unit 3J and a portion of unit 1, an amended preliminary subdivision plan for property on Waveland Museum Lane. There are a number of final subdivision plans that also have been recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on page three, item C of your meeting agenda, plan 2010-33F, the Minifield Leestown property located at 3364 Leestown Road. There are a number of units of the Tuscany subdivision located at 1970 Winchester Road. These items appear on page four and page five of your meeting agenda, items D, E, F, G, and H. They involve plan 2010-34F for Tuscany unit 4A, plan 2010-35F for Tuscany unit 4B, plan 2010-36F for Tuscany unit 4C, plan 2010-37F for unit 4D, and plan 2010-38F for Tuscany unit 4F. These are all amended final record plats again for property being a portion of 1970 Winchester Road. The next final subdivision plan that qualifies for your consent agenda is the next item, page five, item I on your meeting agenda. Plan 2010-39F, plat for the Brighton East Townhomes located at 3393 Sanibel Drive. The next subdivision plan on your agenda on page six, item J, is also on your consent agenda. It's plan 2010-40F, the Sharkey property unit 1, a portion of, this is for property at 1700 Leestown Road. There is one final subdivision plan that has been recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. It appears on page six, item L of your meeting agenda. This is plan 2004-226F, a plat for Higbee Mill Reserve located at 4180-4290 Harrodsburg Road. There are several final plats recommended for a one-year extension by your planning staff. First appears on page seven, it's item N in your meeting agenda, plan 2009-25F, reserve at Walnut Grove unit 1A, located at a portion of 3820 Hatfield Lane. There are an additional three units of this subdivision also appearing on your agenda, page seven and eight, items O, P, and Q. Also for the reserve at Walnut Grove, they involve plan 2009-26F for unit 1B, plan 2009-27F for unit 1C, and plan 2009-28F for unit 1D. Again, these are all a portion of 3820 Hatfield Lane. There is one final subdivision plat recommended for reapproval by the staff. It appears on page nine, item S, plan 2008-161F, Johnson Plaza unit 1, lot 1 amended. This is for property at 1306 South Broadway. There are two final development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first appears on page 11 of your meeting agenda, item E, DP 2010-24, an amended development plan for the Marshall property unit 2, which is a portion of 3000 Leestown Road. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, item F on page 11, for DP 2010-25, St. Paul's Parish development plan for property at 423-501 West Short, 153 and 155, 157 and 161 Sawnyer Street. The final item on your consent agenda is a final development plan recommended for reapproval by the staff. It is on page 11, item G of your meeting agenda, DP 2008-144, final development plan for Johnson Plaza unit 1, lots 1 and 1A, again for property at 1306 South Broadway. Mr. Chairman, at this time, unless any member of the planning commission or member of the audience would like any of these items discussed, I would like to ask you to please vote. The planning commission can consider approving these based on staff and committee recommendations on your consent agenda. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to pull any of these off the consent agenda for any reason? Is there anybody on the commission that wants to pull one of these off for any reason? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Owens? Yes, I'd like to pull off on page 6, item J, plan 2010-40F, Sharkey property. Any other commission members want to pull any other items off the consent agenda? I just have a question, Mr. Chairman. I don't recall having seen a conditional approval from the subdivision committee, and I wondered if staff or one of the chairs of the subdivision committee could explain to me what that means, considering that we have two plats that are being considered for conditional approval. That is the normal recommendation of approval by the committee with a listing of conditions. That's why it's labeled as conditional approval on the consent agenda. It is the normal practice of the committee. I can't remember the last plat that was approved without any conditions at all. It's been a number of years. That's right. That's right. Any further questions, Mr. Phillips? Anybody else have any other than the one item? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda, deleting on page 6, plan 2010-40F, and including the rest of those items. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the consent agenda as read, deleting the one item, plan 2010-40F, Sharkey property. Is there a second? Second. Motion made in the secondary discussion. If not, vote when you see it on the screen. All right, thank you. Thank you. We'll move into our first hearing then. Mr. Martin, we're ready when you are. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the first item on your agenda is on page 2. It is a final subdivision plan. It's item A, plan 2008-118F, Sand Lake and Estes property, section 2. Can you hear me? There we go. There we go. I know you can hear me without this. But we have a final record plat for property located at the corner of Man O' War, Richmond Road, and here it's bound by South Eagle Creek Drive. Here is Lake Wells Drive, which stubs into the back of the subject property. The purpose of this plat was to create these subdivisions that you see here. The plan is back before you today to request waivers. Again, the plan was originally approved subject to those conditions that you do see on your agenda. A waiver at that time was granted as well. And that waiver was a waiver that was granted for what is known as Sand Lake Drive. It was originally called Beale Street at one time. But it is going to be Sand Lake Drive through here. At that time, a waiver was granted for the timing of the completion of the improvements. And you may recall that discussion had to do with the cross section of Sand Lake Drive, the retaining wall, and some issues like that were part of the construction issues. But what they had to deal with was the fact that there were some major utility lines that needed to be relocated as part of the construction. And the applicant had no control over the timing of the relocation of those utilities. So this body granted a waiver to the timing of completion for that in order to allow the utilities to relocate their lines. The waivers that you have before you today concern Lake Wells Drive here as it stubs into the property and the cul-de-sac. The Lake Wells Drive cul-de-sac was the subject of the original waiver on this property. And there have been four waivers on this property granted by this body. You have a timeline that was handed out to you. See here, that shows you the timeline of those waivers. The first waiver was the waiver that modified the Lake Wells cul-de-sac. The second and third waivers were then granted at the same meeting. They were waivers that were granted to allow the termination of this street, formerly known as Bill Street. As you know, you have to have a cul-de-sac or you got to take it through and continue it. They wanted to end it this way. There is, and I'll demonstrate it over here, they ultimately created a distinction between this access easement and these streets in order to show the clear delineation. And this body granted a waiver on this termination. You also granted a waiver, and this was actually on the cross-section of the street. And that had to do, again, with the requirement to build a retaining wall to deal with site conditions and those types of issues. Subsequently, on September 11, 2008, was when you granted the waiver to completion that I previously described. That was the relocation of the utilities. Now today, you have before you two waivers. One was submitted, and it's dated March 31, 2010, the letter. It was for last month's meeting. It was postponed. You see it highlighted in yellow. If you find your waiver report, there'll be a little yellow highlight of the date of the letter received. You also have a waiver report before you highlighted in pink. And what we're doing is we're going to present both of these to you today. And the fact that the original one, although they postponed the plan, they did not actually request a withdrawal of this waiver. So, the first waiver, again, for the letter, March 31st, that waiver request was a request to not build an ADA-compliant access from Lake Wales to the development. When this plan was originally approved, and the very first waiver on Lake Wales was granted to modify the code, the very first waiver on Lake Wales was granted to modify the cul-de-sac and modify and not build the sidewalk, one of the conditions of that waiver approval was to provide pedestrian access to this property. And it was also stated in that report that it would be an ADA-compliant access. Subsequently, the development of the lot has resulted in more grading than initially believed would be necessary. And if you have seen the site, then you're aware that there's a very large retaining wall on that site next to Lake Wales Drive, approximately 16 feet. Now, that severe grade change would make an ADA-compliant access extremely difficult. It would be a significant engineering feat. They would have to build a ramp. It would be extremely large, and to meet compliance, it would cover a tremendous amount of the site, and it does pose a significant challenge and would have a large impact on the site. Now, to meet ADA compliance, the existence of an alternative route does exist. And we have existing sidewalks in the area, and to meet an ADA requirement, it's necessary that you have a reasonable route. And in this case, we believe they do have an alternative route that would serve to meet the ADA compliance requirements for pedestrian access. And with that, staff has recommended approval of this particular request. And again, that is the first waiver request highlighted in yellow in that report. And staff, again, has recommended approval of that particular request. We do have a condition. We are making a recommendation that if you approve this request, that they amend the development plan to include this pedestrian access that will remain and show it on the development plan and allow them to coordinate it with the development of Lot 2. Here is Lot 2. This is the development in question for Lot 2. And in approving, recommending approval of this waiver, recommending approval of this waiver, we are recommending, again, that they produce or provide a pedestrian access from Lake Wells to this lot. We are saying it doesn't have to be ADA compliant, but we do believe you need to provide pedestrian access. This brings us to your second waiver request, one with the pink. The applicant submitted this to us, a letter dated May 5th, 2010. This request is asking that you waive the pedestrian access. Asking that you waive the pedestrian requirement. And that is Article 6-8N of your land subdivision regulations. They are asking that they not build any access for pedestrians whatsoever from Lake Wells to the property. Again, they are citing the topographic problems. And certainly staff does recognize that they've had to build a retaining wall and that there are some grade issues with the site. However, steps are a legitimate way to overcome grade issues. And we believe steps and that sort of access would be appropriate to provide pedestrian access from here, again, Lake Wells, into this retail development. Again, this is a motel that's being proposed. Here are retail shops. This is CarMax that is yet to be built. Here we have Zaxby's, and nothing's been built on the other outlots at this time. You can see that we've tried to illustrate for you the basis of our recommendation for pedestrian access on this plan. We believe that pedestrian access this way, you can see, is quite long. The same would be true if you chose to go this way. You can see, to get to this retail area, what a long distance that would be, whereas a pedestrian access through here would allow for pedestrians to access the retail area. If I can try to remove that little arrow, but this is parking. That's what I wanted to say. And now, again, we understand they have some concerns about providing that access. Staff believes that they have options available to them to address any safety concerns that they may have. Options exist on this property, and design options exist to bring that access down and provide a clearly defined route to the retail area. So staff does not agree with the request and the justification that the applicant has given, and we are recommending disapproval of this waiver request. I know that that's a lot to put on your plate, so I'm here to answer some questions and be sure you understand, again, what we are recommending to you today. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin on either one of the waiver requests? Mr. Owen? Mr. Martin, one, I was not sitting here when this was originally approved, so clarify once again for me. You know, this development has gotten to this point today with the conditions and the approvals with the agreement that the pedestrian access would be built? Yes, sir. One of the conditions originally? Yes, sir. It was a condition of the waiver. A little bit of background, and I don't want to belabor this, but when this plan was originally approved, it was a somewhat different layout. This was dominated by commercial use. There was a tremendous amount of discussion and an issue over the connection of Lake Wells Drive into a street system on this property. That was not approved. Lake Wells had to be terminated. They had to terminate it with a cul-de-sac. Well, because of the grade issues and those problems, they requested a waiver, and this body granted that waiver, and that was a condition of approval of that waiver, barring vehicular access into that development, as originally envisioned. We requested, and you required pedestrian access. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Copeland? But, Mr. Martin, wasn't it pedestrian access with handicap access? It was initially, and they have asked this waiver, the yellow sheet, to not meet the ADA-compliant aspect of that access. And then the pink sheet says, it was a condition of approval of pedestrian access with handicap access. Okay. And the pink sheet says no pedestrian access at all. Yes, ma'am, that is correct. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm representing Dennis Anderson, and Dennis, of course, is here today, in the second row, and Mike Kraft, his development manager, is here, and Rory Cayley, I think, is still at the back, our designer. I do have one handout I'd like to give to you. I'll pass that around here. As those are getting around, just to give you some additional background on this, some of you all here have heard this property a number of times. It has been a difficult site, and as the staff mentioned, there was more grading needed on the property than initially we thought. In 2007, there was a lot of discussion about Lake Wales Drive and Lake Wales Drive, and whether it ought to be going through or cul-de-sac. It was decided to terminate that, and Dennis agreed to build the cul-de-sac, which is there today. Even though the neighborhood didn't feel that a cul-de-sac was needed or wanted, it was deemed that that was appropriate to provide a turnaround for cars and for garbage trucks and for emergency vehicles that would come into the neighborhood. So if you've been out there, you've seen that the cul-de-sac was built, and it was built at considerable expense because it is elevated up and has the retaining wall going around it to have it up there, so it was not an easy feat to build the cul-de-sac, and one of the points I'm making here is we're not here today. I know a lot of times people come in and they say, well, the developer's just trying to avoid paying for an improvement on the site, and I guess, yes, if you approve this, Dennis won't have to pay for that, but Dennis is fully willing to pay for a pedestrian connection. The problem is as we got looking into this, we filed last month a request for a waiver of the ADA compatibility because it's impossible to make this connection without steps, just because it's a 16-foot retaining wall, and to come down here and to come into the site, any place within the site at all, you have to have steps on it. I think we're all in agreement on that. But as we got into it more, just looking at this last month, we got to considering whether there should be a connection or not, and we got into it because of our concern that there is a potential public safety issue involved in making this connection, and I know in these things that we want to have on one side, we do want to have the pedestrian connection, and that's important, and we're not here to say it's not. But on the other side, we do have to consider public safety, and as we got into this, we were concerned that the public safety issues were so important on this, and it was such a unique situation that we had a duty to bring this to you because when things happen on properties like this, people look back and say, well, you know, who approved this? And we have to look at it like we're looking at it in the future and consider the possibilities, the situation on this property, and whether it's good for either the neighborhood behind us or the businesses that will be going in here or the people who would be using this pedestrian connection to have this connection here, and we have to talk about those issues. The, right now, if I go up to the microphone here, this is the development plan, and we have Richmond Road located here, of course, Man o' War Boulevard located here. This is Beaver Creek Drive, which comes off of Man o' War Boulevard, and this is Eagle Creek, which goes down, and then you have the Glenn Buick auto dealership complex and traffic light with Richmond Road down here. Right now, as the staff pointed out, Zaxby's is in here. This lot, the northwestern lot, the entire front is along Man o' War Boulevard is under, has essentially in effect been sold. It's under a long-term land lease to the automobile dealership, and even though you don't see that on site, they've, all the utilities have been installed and site improvements made, and the auto dealer has actually been, we closed on that about a year ago. It's been their choice for economic reasons, I guess, to the economy not to open up the automobile dealership right now. But at this point, we have the residential neighborhood, which is zoned R2 behind us, but it's developed as a single family detached residential neighborhood. Here is the cul-de-sac right here. The retaining wall goes from Man o' War Boulevard along the cul-de-sac down to here at this point. This is a, the plan for this lot is to be a hotel lot on the property. The pedestrian connection would be somewhere off of this cul-de-sac. We have two options of doing it. One is to attach a stairway to the side of the retaining wall and come out here. The other way is to bring the pedestrian connection down through the landscape easement down here, and we'd have to have a stairway, but we'd have to have fewer steps if we did that coming out behind the hotel property. Now, either of those present a safety situation we feel, which is why we brought this up to you. The both of those, we have a situation where that access would be a relatively confined and isolated area, and probably the biggest thing we were considering was the view on this, and right now, if you've been out there, and you probably have, you can see all the way in there from Richmond Road, you can see all the way in there from Manowar Boulevard. However, after the buildings are constructed, the auto dealer building and the hotel, you're going to have a you're not going to have that clear field of view from either Richmond Road or Manowar Boulevard, and you don't have it from the neighborhood up here, because if you're looking down the street in the neighborhood, you're looking on the high side of the 16-foot wall, and you don't see what's going on at the bottom of the wall, unless you're standing at the top looking down there. So we have an isolated, confined space that is out of view, and we were very concerned about the implications of that fact if we provide that pedestrian connection. The alternative is I want you to understand the scale we're talking about, because I measured on the big zoning map. If we're you can walk from Lake Wales Drive down the short stretch of Beaver Creek Drive, down Eagle Creek Drive, and enter the shopping center here, which is where most of the businesses are going to be that people are going to want to go to. We don't anticipate a lot of pedestrian traffic into the automobile dealership. We don't anticipate a lot of pedestrian traffic into the Hope For Hotel, which will be here, but there are going to be some shops down here. If you walk from this intersection, Lake Wales and Beaver Creek, down to the entrance of the shopping center down there, that comes out to just over a quarter of a mile, 0.27 miles. Now, worst case scenario, if you're the person living up at the very end of Lake Wales Drive, that adds 600 feet onto the walk, and that comes out to 0.38 miles. That's less than four-tenths of a mile walk down there. That's a walk which, unlike this connection here, takes you down in a very visible area in front of houses on the public sidewalk. You don't have to cross a single street doing that. It's all on the same block. And you don't have to take any steps either on that. So it's again, worst case scenario, it's 0.38 miles down to this area. Now, if the pedestrian connection is there, you're still going to have to walk down to this area. So it's not going to be like you just zip down the steps and go into a store here. You're going to be coming out into the rear of a hotel area or along the automobile dealership property and have to walk down here to come down that area. This is a B3 area. This is a highway commercial zoning. It's not neighborhood commercial. It wasn't designed to be a neighborhood shopping center. It's designed to be B3 like the other development along Richmond Road. So it's not designed to be a neighborhood shopping center, but there are going to be some things in here that the neighbors will want to go to. But if they want to walk there, there is a good, safe, level area to walk where you don't have to cross a single street. We're concerned about well, I talked to another shopping center owner in Lexington who said, well, Dick, you've got to be concerned about vandalism coming here. Anytime you have an entry and exit method in which people do not have to walk in front of a store, there's going to be an issue about vandalism to the shopping center. That is breaking out lights, breaking out windows, graffiti, break-ins, and that kind of thing. We're concerned about issues where either way on this, if there's a break-in here having an escape route up through the neighborhood or if there's a break-in in the neighborhood having an escape route through the shopping center, again, we think that's a concern for both the businesses that will be here and to the residents that are going to be here on Lake Wales Drive. I might add that throughout this process Dennis has been in touch with the residents on Lake Wales Drive through all of this and has had very good relationship and very good coordination with what goes on there. And I think there's a representative of the neighborhood here today to speak to you. So it's our options. We don't think either option is a good option here. We understand that we have we know there's an issue being here and we want to have the pedestrian access as well. But in good conscience, after looking at the situation and reviewing the facts, we made a decision to ask you to waive the requirement for pedestrian access in this particular case because of the particular situation. And yes, I cited the topography in my request, but I also cited the public safety issues, which I think this would result in a hardship to the people who are using that pedestrian connection, to the people who live up on Lake Wales Drive and maybe Lake Wales Court, and possibly to the business owners who are in the area as well. And we think that the safety considerations should be given important considerations here. There's 21 houses up on Lake Wales Drive and Lake Wales Court. That's not a big subdivision, but we think their concerns need to be taken into account. And considering the fact that there is that walking way to get into the shopping center and good pedestrian access in without having to cross the street, we think the best solution, which is not the ideal solution under any circumstances, but the best solution here is to not make the pedestrian connection. As I said, we're happy to answer any questions you all have. I think Jennifer Dobbs is here from those on Lake Wales Drive, and I think Officer Jones from the Police Department, who we'd asked the Police Department to look at this and give us their recommendation about this before we came to you, is here to give his thoughts to you as well on this. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Mr. Craven? Yeah, Mr. Murphy, is it, did you say it was 16 feet? Yeah, I haven't measured it, but that's what it looks like to me. When you go out there, there's a pole that's the lot line pole right up against it. It's about three feet tall, and from that, it looks like it's about 16 feet. How many steps is that? Well, that's, what would you say, about two stories at about the 7-11 scale, that's seven inches per step times 16 feet. If somebody's got a calculator, they can do that for me. I've got 32 steps. You probably have to do them for 6 inches because that's a commercial. Yeah, okay. But maybe even more. It's about 13 risers in a regular house. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Ms. Copeland? Mr. Murphy, you keep talking about the hardship, and that's how we wound up with a 16-foot wall, which is kind of unusual. What was the hardship that they had to grade that much? Well, in order to prepare the property, the slope from Lake Wales down to Richmond Road was greater than that. They accomplished some of that toward the front, but they still had to do the grading to give a flatter surface for it. In other words, it was their choice to make a flat lot. Well, I think the lot had to be made flat in order to make it available for commercial users. Dennis is here. Mike's an engineer. He should really address this. The engineering manual requires you to hold it to a 5 percent grade. Now, to hold it to a 5 percent grade, you're pulling off of Richmond Road, which is already there, and off Man o' War Road. So that determines your height at that back wall. The reason they want 5 percent grade is so when you get out of your car on a parking lot, your doors don't slam into each other, and then I imagine it has a lot to do with the momentum of the water coming off of it, things of that nature. But you couldn't have plateaued, say, up around the hotel area? That couldn't have been on a plateau and level there and then plateaued again? When we were developing the site, somewhere during the development of it, we did the transaction with CarMax, so we knew the use there. The rest of it, even though we've got it drawn to accommodate a hotel, we don't always know what the final use is. A lot of what we do as developers is very high risk. We just take kind of leaps of faith, and we've had a few hotel people look at it, but we don't know exactly what the use is, and we wouldn't know where to put the brakes if we were to do that. So you sort of have to lay it flat to be more marketable. My name is Mike Craft. I'm an engineer with Dennis Anderson. The scenario you're looking at is if you start the grading from the retaining wall and work your way to Richmond Road and Man O'War, actually you start the grading from Richmond Road and the Man O'War area. If you start at that grade and you come up at 5%, when you plateau, you actually make the retaining wall taller. So what we did is we held a 5% cross slope across the whole parking lot across the whole development. That gives us a shorter retaining wall. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. I think the way you're looking at it, if you start at the hotel, work your way down, then you have a retaining wall at Richmond Road. No. I'm not thinking that at all. I'm just saying that the whole site doesn't have to be flat. It's not flat. It's at 5%. It's a 5% grade. A consistent 5% grade. It could have undulated. It could have what? Undulated. It could have rolled with the topography more. Possibly part of this hardship is self-inflicted. The wall may be partially self- inflicted that you have a 16-foot wall or 32 steps. I don't know how to I don't think you're looking at it right. But we can ask Hillard. I mean, he would be he reviewed the construction plan and he's on your he probably better to explain that than I would be, but it's when you start at your lowest point and you hold the maximum slope that you're allowed, at the other end of that maximum slope is your shortest retaining wall that you can build. Well, while we're at it, what about the steps? Because it's assumed that we're going to walk down all the steps, 1, 2, 3. What about hitting a plateau on those, leveling off, and then going on down? You don't have to do all the steps in a consecutive run. Well, that's true, and that would increase the length of the stairs. Every time you put a landing in, it would make the stairway extend farther out into the property. Yes, but there was a deal struck, and we're trying to hold up to the deal, which you would do pedestrian access. I would just mention that even without the steps, there's still that safety issue. Even if this were a flat situation, we'd still have the safety issue due to the isolated area in the back of the shopping center and out of the public view. The steps are another thing on top of that. But even without the steps, I think we'd have to be in here considering the same issue that we have in front of you. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Mr. Murphy, I have one for you. I was hoping that I'd retire and Sand Lake would be done. I believe you're going to retire and Sand Lake's still not going to be done. I've seen Sand Lake evolve in I can't tell you how many different ways. I can't even remember when we talked about whether there's any fish in that pipe we put through there where the road was going to go around behind the veterinarian's thing or not. Is this a final development plan? Is this the one we're actually going to build? This is a final development plan. And we certainly hope it's what's going to be built on here. The economy has done things to all projects here in Fayette County. This is our final development plan. I can't give you a guarantee that we won't before you again if some user comes up that we hadn't anticipated the issues that there might be with here. I'm not as much concerned about the users as I am about what we've done to create this lot to be developed. You know, I don't hear anybody concerned at all about the lot next to that 16-foot wall that doesn't even have a fence there. I mean, somebody could step out of that man's yard and fall 16 feet right flat down on there. I don't hear concern about the safety of that one. We have a fence at the top. It's a four, I think, a four-foot wrought iron look type fence. I was out there this morning, and I've been out there before. It's a very attractive I'll show you the view. Let me show you the view from the I can find my photographs here. I've got a view showing that. I'll just put that right there. I had it all ready to give you, but I've got it in here. Let's see. First This is the photograph from the neighborhood side, the residential side of Lake Wales Drive. This is the you can see the curb and gutter, the wall, which is about maybe a foot and a half there, and then we have the it's not wrought iron, but it's metal, that sort of modern type look of wrought iron on the top. Those are not sharp edges. Those are rounded edges, so they're not sharp. And I've got a photograph looking the other way, if we could show the other way looking down the cul-de-sac. I was standing about the same place I took that last picture looking back down the cul-de-sac. And then I've got another one showing the neighborhood. This is the neighborhood. You can see the curb in the front just shows where the cul-de-sac begins, and this is going on down Lake Wales Drive and then Beaver Creek intersection is right down there. But my question is where the 16-foot wall is that you can see from Man o' War. That's a side yard of somebody's property. Well, it's lesser height as it goes down toward Man o' War, so it's not it's 16 feet at this where I was standing taking that picture, but as you go down to Man o' War it is less. It's still a big retaining wall on the side yard there. Yeah. That's fine. Any other questions about the waiver request or about the development plan? If not, then we'll move on to the citizens comment section. Yes, ma'am. Hi. I'm Jennifer Dobbs, and I've gotten to know a lot of your faces. I, like you, have been part of Sand Lake ever since it started years ago. I was contacted by Mr. Anderson and asked, you know, just to let me know that this was happening, and I talked to all my neighbors, and as you all know, I've been representative for years now. We looked at it as though this stairway was being built for our street. Across the street, if you go up to the end of the street where Beaver Creek is, across the street there's a church. There's one house on Beaver Creek before you get to Eagle Creek. I can't imagine anybody having the entrance to the shopping center off of Eagle Creek, coming back up and coming around and coming down our street. Before this whole thing was, when it was still a wooded area, we had all kinds of young adults, high school kids, coming down the street and going into the wooded area and coming out and throwing their garbage in our yards and stuff, and since this 16-foot retaining wall has been there, that has not happened. It's been wonderful. They don't wander down our street anymore. Every now and then we have the police chasing somebody down Man o' War and they think they're going to be real smart and they make a left or right on Beaver Creek and a left four car lengths later to come down the street and then they get there and they go, oh wow, what are we going to do? And so they get caught that way. At the same time, if one of the businesses down in front is getting robbed and the police get called, they leave their getaway car up at the top of that cul-de-sac and then be racing out. Luckily for us, there are several children on the street. Nobody has ever gotten hit. We've been real lucky. Most of the people on my street, 21 houses, have lived there for 27 years. Most all of us have lived there that long. There are a few new families. I can't see any of us walking. You can look at me and say, okay, she might get to the bottom of the steps, but she's probably not going to get back up them. They we as a group of people who would be supposed to be using those steps, we don't want them. And we said that when the cul-de-sac was originally going to go in, I agree about the problem of security and safety. I wouldn't want to go and go down those steps and end up behind a hotel. It's places where things that you don't want to happen could happen. I think they'd be more drawn to people going down that way and doing graffiti on that wall, which gives them a lot of area to do graffiti. We just want it to be over. We don't want there to be steps. We don't want there to be a wall. It's so huge an area. If it was ADA, nobody could use it. I mean, it would just be a useless endeavor. But we don't think that the steps are going to be beneficial to any of us. I suppose somebody could come down and park in the cul-de-sac and walk down. But I think they'd be just as easy to drive to the shopping center. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Greg Jones with the Lexington Division of Police, and I'm assigned to the Office of the Chief, and my responsibility now is an initiative called Secured by Design. So as part of that, we were contacted about doing an assessment of this property, as was previously mentioned. So we went to the location and looked at this property, and immediately noticed the retaining wall, and Lake Wells Drive, as you have already heard and know, that's on a quiet street with 21 residences, and a footpath or walkway leading from the cul-de-sac is something that we call, and you see in research, called a leaky cul-de-sac. It simply means that it's linked to other spaces via pedestrian access ways. Significant research shows that leaky cul-de-sacs increase the likelihood of criminal activity. There are some examples in Lexington of this, which require police resources, council person contact, et cetera, to deal with those type situations. When you look at this area and you consider the plan, which was, you know, a site visit and a plan review as part of this assessment, you notice that this leaky cul-de-sac would lead down into a private retail parking lot. Leaky cul-de-sacs are very problematic when it comes to no point of destination, leading into a parking lot with no real place to go. Particularly at night when you put pedestrians in a parking lot next to, for example, a hotel as you see here, I can imagine myself being in the same situations. I've been at a hotel, I've looked and you've seen the signs that says, you know, we're not responsible for the security of your car. Now we have a leaky cul-de-sac that puts people right there. So that was, and again, you heard it, it's just common sense and something that we noted when we looked at it. In order to walk to a retail establishment, one would need to enter the large parking lot in the back of the area. Foot traffic could lead to other property crimes, car break-ins, criminal mischief, other types of vandalism. There would be little surveillance there in the back of the retail area and it wouldn't be protected by what you typically hear as eyes on the street because there's little activity in a secluded suburban cul-de-sac here. In my assessment, it would be best to, and safest, to restrict access to the cul-de-sac. Are there any questions for Officer Jones? Mike? Officer, if the steps were already there, what recommendations would you make for safety considerations? I think the point was brought up earlier. It's the fact that a cul-de-sac is leaking. Whether or not it's flat or steps or what have you, the fact that you can progress through a neighborhood into a parking lot has typically been shown not to be safe and we have examples of that here, if I understand your question correctly. My question is, if the steps are already there, okay, if we're not having this discussion about what if, if those steps are already there, what safety recommendations would you make to provide safety for that area, to enhance that area, if the steps were already there? Certainly in addition to the safety concerns physically getting up and down the steps from a crime standpoint, additional, much additional lighting, it might be the responsibility for a closed circuit television, you would have to watch your vegetation, access and movement would be a primary concern, certainly you would make something more defined, a road would be ideal, but something very lit, a walkway that's defined that's not part of somebody's private property, you're dumping them into private property and then controlling that walkway. So significant expenditures and planning. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Carol? Not for the officer. Okay. Thank you, sir. Let's see if there's anybody else. Any other public comment? Ms. Richardson, did you have a question for staff? No, I had another question for Mr. Murphy. All right, go ahead. Before we move on, I assume that the developer would hold the liability if I fall down those however many steps, is it the developer who is, I mean, whose property is this on? The developer's? Well, the steps are on the developer's property. And I mean, I'm not a liability lawyer or a trial lawyer, I'm a land use lawyer, but being a lawyer, you have to worry about that. I mean, one of my thoughts was, okay, if something happens here, what's going to happen? And the first question is going to be, well, who built this? Whose idea was this connection? And we, that's, I guess, a secondary consideration, but that has to be a consideration because it goes back to safety. Liability flows from safety. And being private property owned by Dennis, we just don't feel like we can advocate for this connection for safety purposes. And that's why we feel we have to be here asking you not to make this connection. I mean, we're all in the same boat. I mean, Dennis is going to be the owner and the builder, you're going to be the one approving it. I think we're all, we all have the same concerns about safety. We would have some liability concerns, I don't know if you would or not, but we have to think about that. But it's primarily, it all goes back to safety. And we know what's gone on in the past on this property and it's just as we get down to thinking about it and making the decision and making the decision to build that, we have to come down and really look at those issues. And like I said, Dennis can pay for this. It's not a question of paying for it or wanting to build it or whatever. It's a question of should it be there. And we just had to make that decision. We don't think it should be there. Mr. Murphy, while you're up, do you have any rebuttal to the citizen's comment? No. Staff, do you have any rebuttal? All right. I guess we'll turn it over to the Commission for your consideration, questions. I'd like to reiterate Lieutenant Jones. He did work for me as a, he had a scholarship last year to EKU and worked directly for me for a few months and so we studied these issues. This is from a fresh start, from a, you know, again, I have no recollection, I have no knowledge of any of the issues that have gone on before this. But from just this particular connection issue, my suggestion would be, would it be in another city or anything else, if someone were to ask me and this does occur, I would suggest to not make this connection. Because it is a, it is, as Lieutenant Jones said, it is a, what we call a leaky cul-de-sac. It is a limited access area. It is in a suburban area. So issues of eyes on the street, kind of the Jane Jacobs issue, are for more urban areas where there is more activity. With this being a connection between a small suburban little enclave to a more commercial area, again, ending out in what's proposed to be a car dealership and a hotel, the potential for victimization is two-way. It's both the incidence of burglary has increased on leaky cul-de-sacs, so the residents, such as the one who spoke earlier, are at an elevated risk for burglary victimization. But also the risk going the other way in terms of larceny, flaunto at a potential hotel or also vandalism on the lot. To answer your question, Mike, about what we would do, if this was an issue of crime, we do have some. I've been called by a council person's aide about Rand Avenue, which has a leaky cul-de-sac to Elm Street. And my suggestion and their suggestion, they called me, wanted me to come down and look at it. There is a sidewalk that connects the two. They have had repeated incidents of crime, drug dealing, various other things, and having people being able to get access directly through and kind of get away quickly. The recommendation, and this is a recommendation that has been by National Institute of Justice and the Department of Justice for years, which is to close access. So if that sidewalk, if those steps existed and they were a crime issue, my suggestion would be to close them. We've given those suggestions before. And that's what I want to avoid. I mean, that's what we try to avoid. So at the planning stage, rather than for it to become a problem and to go back after the fact, because, again, a very common police suggestion is to, if access is a problem, close it. To avoid that from becoming an issue, the suggestion would be to find access some way else. Were this a different development, I think connectivity would be a bigger issue. But as it is, the type of development that it is, it doesn't appear that that neighborhood's desire to have that connection is as important. That's not as necessary, had it been a neighborhood development, where there's our grocery stores and other neighborhood-centered retail. As it is, I don't think it's a huge hardship. And again, listening to the neighborhood speak, saying that this is not something that we really care to have, I would agree with them in that situation. So again, from my perspective and what we recommend in terms of studies, and when people come and ask us, this is not something we would recommend, because it does fall into that category of a leaky cul-de-sac, which again, elevates that risk of burglary and other types of victimization in the area. Thank you. Mr. Wilson? Since I'm new here, if you all can help give me a bit of background, because obviously this has been on you all's agenda for quite some time. I think most of you would have felt like you could have taken care of this a long time ago. But I have a quick question related to why would we recommend anything that is not ADA compliant? What were the considerations that were given by the council to not to allow any developer to come forward with anything that is not ADA compliant? I'll yield to the staff on that one. I sure can't answer. Mr. Wilson, I guess from a staff perspective, it's a very rare type of waiver. The last one that I can think of was probably 8 or 10 years ago, had to do with the slope of the sidewalk as it was constructed. I don't know if Mr. Martin had anything to add. I would just add that when it comes to ADA compliance, if there's an availability of an alternate route that meets those requirements, that will satisfy the requirements of ADA. And that's a standard that has been used in other situations. It helped me to understand the alternate route means the driving all the way around. Is that correct? And as I understand it, what's the distance between the point to point from the cul-de-sac to the driving around? As Mr. Murphy pointed out, they measured it from back in here and around. It's approximately a little over a quarter of a mile. This distance is much longer. Now, to meet ADA compliance, what you need is what's considered just a reasonable alternative route. It's not necessary to be the most direct route. And so in this case, because of the topography and the issues that they had and the difficult aspect of building a ramp that would be ADA compliant, we did agree with that particular request that that would be a hardship, because these alternative routes are the longer it exists. And ADA, again, doesn't say it can't be a long route, per se. And can I assume that this alternate route has sidewalks of capability? Yes, sir. It does. There are sidewalks along South Eagle Creek and there are sidewalks here that bring you out to Man o' War, which also has a sidewalk. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions? Mike Craven. Mr. Chairman, are you ready for a motion? Yeah. We can have a motion and we can discuss the motion. Mike Craven. Mr. Chairman, are you ready for a motion? If there's no, yeah, we can have a motion and we can discuss the motion. All right. I'd like to move approval of both waivers, Sand Lake 2008, 118F, March 31st, and then also the waiver 118F, dated March 5th, the one approval to not do the stairs, and the other one is approval to not do the ADA. For these findings, pedestrian access would be detrimental to the public's safety because it would have to be created within confined and isolated areas, either as a stairway attached to a retaining wall or as a walkway through the 20-foot landscape buffer. Both alternatives would be out of the public view, thereby raising serious safety implications. The need for the waiver was created by the unforeseen grading required to develop this and surrounding properties. And also, I'd like to add that the neighborhood is opposed to it, and also there is an alternative route. If I may suggest that the motion be clear that for the other waiver request, I assume you'd be adopting the findings proposed by staff for the approval of the other waiver request. Yes, that's right. Okay. The March 31st waiver is what you're talking about, yeah. Okay, the motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Whitman. What about discussion on the motion? Is there any discussion on the motion? Go ahead. If you want to ask for one, you can. I think it is. Before we vote on the motion, and I don't normally do this, but I would really like to see Sand Lake developed. And I am extremely tired of waivers. We have seen waivers from roads to topographical to wall. I mean, if this doesn't get the prize for the most waivers for developing a piece of property, I don't know what does. That has nothing to do with how I'm going to vote on this at this time. It's just a frustration of a guy that's probably been here too long. Sand Lake has been a topic of discussion since my first year on the Planning Commission. That's eight years ago. And it's been all the way from roads to creeks to height to retention walls to the two you have in front of you today to what we saw on this sheet here. At some point, we've got to get on with it. And to continue to grant waivers just to me is a really counterproductive process here. That has nothing to do with how we're going to vote on this waiver today. It's just this is probably the last chance I'm going to get a chance to comment on it. Mr. Murphy and I couldn't let the change pass. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, when you see it on the screen, vote. Motion passes. You didn't get to vote? You want to take a voice vote? Okay. Okay. Let's go back and do a voice vote then. Would that be the way to solve it? All right. If you'll call the roll, we'll vote. Mr. Holmes? Yes. No. Mr. Paulson? Yes. Ms. Whitman? Yes. Ms. Richardson? Yes. Yes. Mr. Owens? No. No. Ms. Phillips? No. Mr. Cravens? Yes. Ms. Copeland? No. Mr. Wilson? No. No. And Mr. Penn? Yes. Yes. Five A's and five and five. Ty? I think you're saying five and five? Yes. Five yeses and five noes. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. I think you're saying five and five? Yes. Five yeses and five noes. What do we do now, Coach? Well, I mean, that motion failed. You do have two waiver requests. Obviously, you can either have another motion with respect to, again, both waivers for disapproval. You can divide it up and have an individual vote on each of the waivers. I mean, it's going to be up to the commission to decide. But at this point, that vote for relief failed, and there has to be a majority vote to grant the relief. Right. Okay. So what's the pleasure of the commission? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Holmes? As I follow this, I'd like to make a motion in support of the first waiver request that was stated March 31st that the staff had permitted. All right. I'm in favor of that. It's the second waiver request that I have a problem with. Okay. I would make a motion approval with the waiver request that I presented. Okay. So you want to move the approval of the March 31st waiver for reasons provided by staff? Yes. Okay. You understand that motion. Is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded to approve the March 31st waiver for reasons provided by staff. Any discussion on that motion? March 31st. ADA compliance. Any discussion on the motion? If not, can we still vote on the screen this time? Is Ms. Phillips logged in? I guess we'll test it. All right. When you see it, you vote. Okay. That motion passes. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for acceptance of the recommendation of the staff with respect to the other May 5th memo. All right. I'd like to support the staff recommendation, recommend disapproval of the requested waiver. Okay. You've heard that motion. Is there a second? Motion made and seconded by Mr. Wilson. Any discussion on the motion? It's on the May 5th waiver for disapproval. And the motion is to support the staff and the disapproval. No, I don't think so at this point. We've had our hearing. We've had our public comment. We understand what your position is. I'll leave that up to the commission. If they want to ask to hear that, you can do that. If not, the chair will rule that we can't do that this time. All right. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Same situation? All right. It's a tie vote just like it was the last time. What do we do now? In the absence of a majority vote granting a waiver, a waiver has not been granted. So they were granted a waiver from creating an ADA compliant access, but they were not given a waiver to comply to provide some form of pedestrian access. All right. That's the way we're rolling. Anybody want to take five or you're okay? Do you want to move on to the next presentation? I didn't understand you. We'll hear your comment. It has to be very brief while they're setting up for the next one. I know that you've already voted, so this is probably not going to do any good at all, but I wondered how the commission could vote the way they did at the recommendation of a police officer for our safety. I'll take that as a comment, but we will not respond to your question. Okay. Thank you. Chris, we're waiting on you. Go ahead. All right. The next item on your agenda is on page six. ADA Plan 2010-40F, Sharkey Property Unit 1. This is for property located at 1700 Leestown Road. If you can see on the aerial behind me, this is off of Leestown Road. It runs diagonally this way. Can you rotate that just a little bit so that Louie places? There we go. That's now we're in the same way as the record plat on the board. Leestown Road is running up and down on this aerial photo, new circle above it. The access off of Town Center Drive comes into the Sharkey property, and this particular plot deals with Sharkey Way, Louie Place, and Hatter Lane property, the rights of way that make an almost rectangular piece through the middle, as well as the Town Center access easement through the middle of the property. The purpose of this plan was to revise the street cross-sections for both what is labeled on here as GG, the cross-sections for Sharkey Way, Louie Place, and Hatter Lane, all three, as well as to clarify an access easement cross-section, Section EE highlighted in yellow, which is this access easement right here. It serves as a public street, but it serves the retail that is on both sides of Town Center Drive. The purpose of this plot was to, I believe from staff's understanding, was that the Division of Engineering, in order to release a bond or a letter of credit for this particular property, needed for the applicant to clarify their utility strips and the location of sidewalks on their cross-sections for cross-section GG, as well as to clarify what is in things like planters and trees within this cross-section for this access easement. The commercial development you see on Town Center Drive going through the middle has tree planters as well as on-the-street parking, angled parking. So the cross-section indicates a 12-foot sidewalk, but in all places it is not 12 feet. It varies anywhere from 8 to 12 feet. So the purpose of this plot was to clarify what is in that access easement cross-section, as well as to reflect built conditions for sidewalks and utility strips for the portion around the public streets of Hatter, Sharky Way, and Town Center Drive. The Subdivision Committee recommended approval at its last meeting subject to the 10 conditions as shown on your agenda. If you have any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them, as well as Mr. Newman is here from engineering, if you have any questions for him as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris, as far as, you know, I guess what you said, we're here because the work got done or at least part of it got done and someone was asking for bond release? That's my understanding, yes. Has all the work been done? I cannot answer that. You'll have to check. My question would be if all the work has not been done, why would there be a request for a bond release at this point? I defer that to Mr. Newman, to Hillard Newman from the Division of Engineering. The other question I've got is, specifically relates to number nine here, where it reads, add additional cross-sections to reflect as-built conditions. Yes. It seems like we're kind of backwards here. You know, why are we at the point of having to, or the developer having to ask to change a plat because of something that was built incorrectly? It would appear, from our understanding, that in certain areas along these three streets that are public streets, that the utility strip and the sidewalk layout was done anywhere from five to five and a half feet, a difference of six inches. Our condition that you see on your agenda basically is asking them to tell us what the cross-section is at the locations that are built. I can't answer any questions about how it was built in the bond release portion. You're saying it's anywhere from five to five and a half feet. What was it supposed to be built at? It's five feet. Okay, so it varies anywhere from five to five and a half feet. It's the difference of, from our understanding, pulling from face of curb and back of curb. How is it supposed to be pulled? Back of curb. Okay, so simply put, some of it is built incorrectly. Yes. Okay, and now we're being asked to correct this. That is correct. And the staff's conditions are basically asking them to tell us what the cross-section is at those individual places. That varies doesn't satisfy that. It doesn't tell us anything at those individual locations where the cross-sections are noted. Okay, so, okay. Do you want to speak to Mr. Newman? Yeah, maybe he can add some further light to it. Mr. Newman? What have you seen out there, Mr. Newman? My understanding is there was some variation in the location of the sidewalk relative to how it shows up on the final record plat. I think the final record plat shows, I believe, a five and a half foot utility strip. And for whatever reason, as constructed, it varied some, you know, perhaps a six inch amount in some locations. The remedies would be to either remove and replace the sidewalk or there's an administrative remedy that's available, which is changing the final record plat. Typically this kind of plat would be done as an appeasement or a minor amendment to the plat. It's not uncommon. I'm asking a question, Trent. What about the bonding, the request for the bond release? Has all the work been done or has it not been done? No, I don't believe all the work has been done. I think it's an issue of being able to reduce the bond. You know, as the bond is renewed on an annual basis, the developer would be eligible for a reduction in that bond to credit him for what amount of work he had performed over that period. Okay. Good deal. Thank you. Commissioner? Rory Kaley, EA Partners. We were in agreement with staff's recommendations and subdivision committees as far as those ten conditions. The discussion was always, you know, how can it be six inches different and how can we make this easier? And as the plat was filed, we added in the word varies to that section. The sidewalk is five feet. The right-of-way stays 60 feet. Everything is built to standard. The difference is when they pulled to put in their sidewalk, whether you're pulled from front curb or back a curb. And it's not just moving the sidewalk so much. When you do this, you also get your aprons off of the street in your parking lot. All those tie into that sidewalk elevation. I know at one area, the gas station up front, we had had changes done to the entrance street very early on because of utility placement. So that section had been changed so that we could move the sidewalk. As they continued the sidewalk around the curve onto Sharky Way, they maintained the same setback, even though the sections as recorded long before they were building had showed it six inches different. The recorded cross section has an extra foot added to either side to include the wider sidewalks that we've done out there. So fours or fives. Nothing that we're asking increases the need for easements outside of that. The sidewalk is still five feet. It's still within either the right-of-way or that right-of-way plus easement. And it's just that utility strip that has been built differently by different parties as they've gone around. The entire sidewalk is not built for all the streets that typically gets done when the restaurant, whoever is using it, is completed. That's when you get your sidewalk in, once the construction is completed. Before any buildings went up, the developer had to bond the sidewalks. If you don't bond them, you build them. During construction, you tear them all up and it's useless. So you bond your sidewalks. Over time, you get to reduce your bond amount by what is completed. So for the public streets, there's a six-inch difference. Everything is still built correctly. It's just that sidewalk being six inches closer to the street or not. The other part of this is the access easement, which is Town Center Drive. And that one is an access easement. It's private, and the cross-section shows that we have 10 feet. Well, within that 10 feet, they've gone in there and they've added in the street tree wells, and they've got entry columns to the features of the buildings, and they've really turned it into Town Center. But because those things were not shown on my cross-section, the bond can't be reduced. So I've got two parts, one of them, both of them. They're built correctly, what everyone is expecting them to be, but I've got to get the bond released or reduced somehow. And the solution was to bring them back to you. Thank you for your explanation. You're welcome. Any other questions? If not, the Chair will entertain. Mr. Copeland. It's one thing to impact a sidewalk with street furniture and tree wells. Another thing to put architectural elements like columns. I'm not familiar with the site, but how many columns are out there in the sidewalk pedestrian area? Well, you still have your passage area of clear sidewalk. You know, on the town side of Town Center, the photo I was shown had two or three columns and an arc. It was a focal feature for the entrance to the building. So it's part of the building. But it's not public right-of-way. There's no infringement into anything. This is all access easement. This is all owned by the lot. It's all their street frontage, their decorations, what they own and what they're improving. Still plenty of access to get through there. One of the conditions is to show the minimum sidewalk width, which we'll pull and find out what the smallest dimension is, and that will be set on here as the minimum. How do you suggest we not have this conflict in the future, that we can figure out where to measure the front and the back of the sidewalk? Well, since we build so much sidewalk and I'm hardly ever down here, I don't think there's a way to fix it. Just sometimes it will happen, sometimes it won't. I mean, there's no one who can sit out there and hold the guy's hand while he measures his forms. If he can't read a plan, I can't do anything to help him. Any other questions? Thank you. Chris, are you through? All right. Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Mike, excuse me, I didn't see your name. Go ahead. I was just going to make a motion, too. I'd like to move approval of Plan 2010-40A of Sharkey Property. And I think it's admirable that we're getting this cleaned up, but the plan matches. Okay. You heard a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Ms. Whitman. Any discussion on the motion? Mike? I'd simply like to say, one, I'm in Townley Square very often, whether it's Walgreens or Applebee's or going through to Kroger's or whatever, there's nothing I've seen there that is offensive to me. I think it's a good development. My only point today for bringing this up, you know, I think it's reasonable to ask builders to do things the proper way. I ask my employees to do things the proper way, all of them doing it the same way. And ultimately, I'm responsible. And, you know, that's the only reason for bringing it up today. I think it's a doable thing, simply put. But overall, I love the Townley development. I really do. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay, I guess we'll go to page 10. Good afternoon. If you want to turn to page 6, we are looking at a record plan 2010-41F Marshall property, unit 2K amended. This is an amended final record plan. The property is located on McConnell's Trace. We've seen this several times with other sections that have been presented before us. Today they have three lots that they're wanting to come back in and subdivide into a total of 41 lots to meet their development plan. The plan was reviewed by the subdivision committee with ten conditions on the property. It was approved. And we have one waiver that has been requested. And Tom Martin, he'll present that to you. If there's any other questions. Is there any questions on the plan before Mr. Martin comes and talks about the waiver? Thank you, Sherry. You're welcome. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, there is a waiver request associated with this final record plan. The waiver request that you have before you is a request on the timing of the access easements that are an integral part of this development. You may recall, as this development was laid out for you originally, they had access easements to serve as frontage for townhouse lots in various parts of the development. A condition that was placed on this development was the need to create that frontage, i.e., the access easements to allow the recording of the lots. What the developer discovered as they built and moved this way, and again, as Cheryl explained, we're at the last section of this development, is that they were running into some field problems. They were creating these access easements, literally building them, getting the plats recorded. Then they were coming in and building the townhouses. They started having problems with the provision of utilities. They were having to tear up these access easements. And so they've come to you today to request a waiver to be allowed to bond those access easements. So they'll have to tear them up in order to provide the utilities. And by bonding them, that will ensure that they do get completed, but it will allow them to coordinate the provision of the utilities with the construction of the townhouses, and again, not require them to tear up what they've already built, the access easements. This is similar to the sidewalk situation and the apron that you've seen where the developers and builders have requested some relief not to have to rebuild a sidewalk. In this case, they're asking not to have to rebuild the access easement. Now, staff is recommending approval of this waiver. It's a conditional approval in that we are asking that only the final course of asphalt, the final courses, I should be plural there, be bonded. Staff has concerns that in order to meet the intent of the regs, that they should provide the gravel and the access as frontage to these lots. And again, we are recommending approval with that one caveat. And I will be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, thank you. Commissioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. We would request that instead of it just being the asphalt portion, that it does be the entire roadbed as we've requested. Your roadbed is going to have, this is probably nine, three, and one, nine inches of stone, three inches of asphalt, and a final coat on top. That stone needs to be as protected as the asphalt is. We're requiring us to lay the stone exposed to the elements and moisture. It's detrimental. Cutting the stone base, which would be subcompacted, it's detrimental. The heavy equipment for the concrete trucks and whatever else is going to be building the structures, all these are going to tear up that stone bed as well, and they'll have to be redone just like the asphalt would do. So the whole thing works as a unit, and that's what we're trying to ask for is that the whole driveway access easement be bonded until after construction is done. Any questions for Mr. Rory? Any questions for Rory? Thank you. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this? I guess you don't have any rebuttal, do you? Mr. Martin, do you have any rebuttal? All right. We'll close this part of the hearing and turn it over to the Commission. Mr. Chairman, if you're ready for a motion. I'm ready for whatever the Commission wants to do. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for approval of the waiver request for Plan 2010-41F, 2K, according to the recommendations provided by staff. Motion has been made to second it. Ms. Whitman, any discussion on the motion? No discussion. I guess we're ready to vote on the motion. You heard the motion. You understand the motion. You see it on the screen, vote. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is item M at the bottom of page 6, Plan 2005-196F, Sharky Property, Unit 2B. This is a plan that was originally approved subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda. Subsequently, the plan was brought back for reapproval and continued discussion. The plat that you see before you today, we are back towards the back of the Sharky property. You have Town Square Park, an old town walk here. This is a detention basin that exists on the property. The original layout, and here we have single family area on the Sharky property. Here there are some townhouses further up in this direction proposed. The plan originally had a townhouse layout along this frontage on old town walk, and it served as a transition from the single family townhouse, and there are apartments here in this part of the development. The development plan for this property is on your agenda for a little bit later today. This reflects that development plan in the newly proposed lotting pattern. They proposed to lot five single family homes here. These are townhouse lots. This is an access easement they are proposing to serve as the frontage ultimately for these townhouse lots as well as the access to these rear lots. This is an area of guest parking and access and parking easement that is proposed on this portion of the property. You'll see that it was originally recommended for a postponement by your subdivision committee. We have met with the applicant, and we talked with them at length about the issues that were facing this property and about the timing issues that may be facing this property. And you can see the ten conditions that exist on this plan. Now, one of those conditions is the filing of a minor easement plat to remove this conflict. There is a sanitary sewer easement here. We are asking that no building permits be issued until that conflict is resolved. It can be resolved by way of a minor plat. Now, by just restricting building permits, it will allow this plat to move forward and allow them to record the plat. We have, again, looked at these discussion issues that you see before you. Number eight, discuss the proposed driveway access to the single-family homes. There is to be no access to the single-family homes. The access easement that you see there will provide for rear access to those single-family lots, and that is consistent with the overall single-family development in the Sharkey development. The access and parking easement that you see as a discussion item on number nine, again, that is this area here. Staff had some initial concerns about this. Under the R3 zoning and the R3 standards, the parking that they need to meet on this part of the development, they're going to need this parking area. We did have a few concerns about access and closeness to this access point in the apartments, but, again, it's not going to generate a whole lot of traffic, and so our concern along those lines was just a minor concern, and it is more important in order for them to be able to meet their parking requirement, obviously, for this development to work. So, again, we're comfortable now with what they're proposing for that access and parking. There was a waiver that was requested, and you should have a handout, a very small handout, two pages in your package on that waiver. That was a waiver that was similar to the Marshall discussion. That waiver was a timing waiver, again, and it was over concern of getting this access easement constructed along with the rest of the site improvements and getting the foundations in for the townhouses and not having the same problem with utilities and tearing up the access easement. There is no longer a need for that waiver. Staff is recommending a postponement of that waiver, and, in fact, there is no need for it. The applicant could withdraw that request as well. They are going to be able to construct this access easement in conjunction with the overall site development. So, again, staff does not believe that waiver is necessary. So in looking at your conditions, staff believes that you can delete 8, 9, and 10, and with that, staff would recommend approval of this plan subject to those seven remaining conditions. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them. So, Mr. Martin, this waiver request here is just done away with. The one that talks about findings for access easements. That is not the waiver request. I thought that was in your packet. It's a two-page one. Mr. Salih may have it there for you. That's the findings for an access easement, and that's coming. I'd make a slight correction to what I just told you. If you look at your conditions for approval, and I told you you could strike 8, 9, and 10, you could strike number 4. You see a line through there, urban foresters approval of the tree inventory? Right. That's no longer necessary. That was all resolved with the original approval on the plat. So there are actually six conditions. Any questions, Mr. Martin? Roger. Thank you. This is a roll ratio. This one's easy. We're in agreement with the six revised conditions and request approval. I'm surprised. Any questions for Rory? Yes, ma'am. Rory, would you please explain to the commission? I think they need to know what happens on garbage day here. Okay. I'd like to state that this plan is coming before you at the request of the Homeowners Association. I just scolded Mike for not inviting Michael Prather here. We had townhomes on this whole section, and the orientation of it meant the people who were sitting in their front porch across the street were looking at the side of townhomes, and they said they'd like to look at the front of houses. And we sat down and looked at it, and we reconfigured it, and we're going to have to redo some plumbing, but we did this to accommodate the Neighborhood Association, and it has their support. My question on garbage, the Neighborhood Association, this is a maintenance-free lifestyle. They pay $100 per month, and for that they get their lawn taken care of, their shrubbery taken care of, watering, sidewalks shoveled, and they also take their trash from the back of their home to the corner of the street. And once the trash is moved up, they take it from the corner of the street back to the home. Does that answer your question? You mean they take out garbage bags, or are they going to row 13 Herbies? They row 13 Herbies up to the end of the alley. The garbage truck comes, picks it up, sets it off, and they have a gentleman who takes it out there in the morning, and he comes back in the evening and returns it to the back of the home. So you could have 13 Herbies, 13 blue ones, and 13 brown ones. That's 39 lined up. Do we have enough space out there to line 39 up? Yes, you've got 120 feet. Okay. Well, that's getting close at three feet to a Herbie. But, in fact, you may not have enough. But that's a pretty messy alternative. I mean, a pretty messy solution for high-density housing, and that's my point. I wanted the commission to see what we're okay. Let me say this. The only ones that will have Herbies are the houses. The townhouses will be accessed from the apartment complex, and they go in a compactor there. So the ones with the little special parking lot are going to go over to a? They access through the apartment complex parking lot. Okay. We have a club facility and a mail room and a garbage compactor all in one area. They come in. They usually throw their bags on the trunk of their car. So the $100 valet will take it over there? No. That's the houses and the townhouses have a different homeowners association, a different level of service. So the townhouses are going to have to walk out their front door through the little separate parking lot and go over and drop it off next door? Yes. That's the same as everyone in the apartment community does. Well, that eliminates quite a few Herbies on the corner. It's still messy, and it gives high-density housing. We need to come up with a better solution down the pike if we're going to sell high-density housing. Any other questions before we turn it over to the commission? Ms. Martin, do you have any rebuttal? Rory, I assume you're satisfied with where we are. All right. We turn it over to the commission. Let me ask a point with our attorney. Do we need a motion to postpone this waiver, or do we just ignore it? I think we're going to have to have something. Either the applicant needs to withdraw it, and then you can move to accept the withdrawal, or you're going to have to move to indefinitely postpone. There has to be something to show how it was. I was wondering how we were going to dispense with it. Is it the same if I agree with the omission of Item 10, which is discuss the waiver, or do I need to officially withdraw it first and then? Well, I think there's going to have to be either a withdrawal on your part accepted by the commission by motion, or the commission will postpone it in accordance with the recommendation of the staff. I mean, it would probably be cleaner to just simply withdraw and accept that withdrawal, because then it's disposed of unless you think that it may become an issue later. Well, let's assume everyone's going to vote in favor of this item. And if so, we'd like to withdraw the waiver in favor of staff's recommendations of six remaining conditions. Okay. All right. Is the commission clear with what we're going to do here? Then we're going to have two motions. We're going to have one motion to withdraw the waiver, and I'll accept the motion in that behalf right now. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for withdrawal of the waiver on Plan 2005-196L. Is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded. Vote when you see it on the screen. Now the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of Plan 2005-196F, Sharkey Property, with what is now the six remaining conditions. Heard the motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Ms. Whitman. Any discussion on the motion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, to try to clean up a motion that I failed to make earlier, may I move to approve the Marshall Property? All right. We have moved to accept the staff's recommendation on the waiver, but now I'd like to approve the subdivision plan. That's DP-2010-24, Marshall Property Unit 2 amended. I'd like to recommend approval with respect to the staff's conditions. Is there a second motion? Heard the motion. Second. Thank you for catching me on that and cleaning it up. Is there any discussion on the motion, Plan 2010-41F with ten conditions? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'd like to direct your attention to page 10 of your agenda. Item C, DP 2010-22, Tackett Property, Kroger Plaza. This is property located at the corner of Brine Station Road and New Circle Road. This is the Kroger Plaza, again, that is located at the corner of New Circle Road. Here we have New Circle Road. Here we have Brine Station Road that has been reconstructed in this area. We have the Rookwood subdivision that borders the development here on the north and the east. Along New Circle Road, we have various commercial developments facing New Circle Road that border the development. Here is the White Castle, Long John Silver's. There's a Fifth Third Bank, a Blockbuster, and some various retail stores here on the existing development. The amendment that you see before you today is for an expansion of the Kroger store located here. They are asking for 15,000 plus additional feet. The addition itself is a little over 20,000 square feet in this area. They're going to utilize some existing square footage that has already been approved in this location that will be applied to the Krogers. In this location, they're going to put their drive-thru window for their pharmacy at Krogers. You can see the parking that exists here in the center of the development. We have access off New Circle Road here and access off Brine Station in this location. The nature of this development is such that it now triggers big box requirements. You can see that on your conditions. Now in this area, we do have detention. Again, this expansion and this square footage is what has triggered your big box requirements. Staff did distribute to you two items associated with this plan. One is this color. It is the revised staff recommendations. Here you will find also on white paper with bold titles is the big box report for you for this development. The staff recommendations that you can see before you are standard sign-off conditions. The ones that we have deleted are those cleanup conditions and clarification conditions that existed on the previous submittal. The applicant did bring us in a new submittal. With that submittal, he addressed the majority of these conditions. Things such as construction access location. Things such as meets and bounds from the record plat. Those are types of cleanup conditions, just necessary information as required by the ordinance on the development plan. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out to you and they relate very much, several of them, to the big box requirements on this property. One of the conditions that you see on your revised handout is to resolve this easement conflict in this area. There is a very large easement here. It's pretty unique. It's very, very large. You don't see them that large very often. It does create a conflict here. The applicant is aware of that and it's our understanding they have been working on that. That's a matter that's got to be resolved before they can build onto that. There's various ways to resolve that, but that is a condition of approval and again would be a standard one when we have such a conflict. We've also asked on your conditions that the Ped Pedestrian Planner approve the pedestrian access as proposed and you can see this highlighted in yellow here. And then we've asked that a sidewalk be added here. Now these are items that reflect the big box compliance guidelines that you have before you. And again you have a report and I'm going to briefly touch on those guidelines. You can see to your left of the development plan the elevations that were submitted to document certain aspects of compliance with the big box requirements or big box guidelines in your ordinance. They are proposing to significantly change the appearance of the Kroger's. They are altering the facade as you can see in this area. They're offering gable roofs, parapet roofs. You can see where they're breaking things up between the two entrances. They're doing it on the side as well. The one area that they are not doing it quite to the extent that is recommended in the guidelines is the rear, but again this is an established Kroger's. You can see the relationship has already been established with the orientation of the building. Access through here, this is where they have docking and unloading requirements and dumpsters and that sort of thing. So again, that orientation is fairly established, but they are changing and coming into compliance with the guidelines along these frontages. There is an interesting aspect of this plan that I'll mention now. You can see a lot of notes. This was a contentious zone change. There's a lot of private agreements and there were a lot of conditional zoning requirements placed on this plan. One of which through here is an 8-foot block wall with a finished face and a 5-foot buffer strip exists associated with that wall. There was a 50-foot buffer established as well as part of that conditional zoning that exists here and here on this property. Now, other aspects of the big box that are important, again, are listed in your report. Again, they're varying their building heights and adding different aspects to the facade to help break it up. We believe that what they're offering here is bringing this into substantial compliance with those guidelines. We would like to see a little more breakup in that front wall between the entrances. They quite often do that with their own displays and with landscaping. They have clearly delineated the entrance, which is also an important aspect of the big box. And those are customer entrances. Those are an aspect of the big box, again, that are important. And that's here. As you can see, they've clearly delineated these entrances. These two entrances here that you see here are very clearly delineated. Other aspects of the big box is sidewalks along the perimeter. They are offering new sidewalks along their frontage here, new circle. They're going to tie in to a sidewalk that exists here for White Castle. So we'll have a nice completed connection here. It was our understanding, we've asked that they complete this connection of this sidewalk through here, just to complete a sidewalk through here, because the center has a very nice wide sidewalk, a very wide sidewalk in front of this retail area of the development. They are adding a covered sidewalk in front of theirs. So with the exterior sidewalks and the interior sidewalks, these are components that we look for in a big box compliance. So we see improvement along those lines. Now, in terms of internal pedestrian access, we have some concern about this proposed location that I've highlighted with you in yellow. We believe that it would be better situated here. Now, we do believe that by proposing this, they are bringing themselves into better compliance with the guidelines, and it certainly is a welcome attempt. We would like to, we added the condition of the PED planner so that we can talk to them about the most appropriate way to accomplish this. We understand that they do have some concerns about how that might be accomplished, and we're certainly welcoming the opportunity to work those details out with them. There is associated with pedestrian requirements under the big box, a transit center or some sort of pedestrian plaza, those types of items that are encouraged. You may recall the Beaumont plan, they provided a large pedestrian plaza out in that development. In this case, it's very difficult to retrofit that sort of thing, but they are providing an outdoor seating area in front of Kroger's here. They've also talked with Lextran, and they are going to provide a pad down here where they're constructing this new sidewalk, which again will lead up into the development, and it's going to enable Lextran to move the transit stop they have here, and they have a shelter here, they can move it down here now. And that is an improvement over the existing situation, because you have right turn movements coming in here, and when the buses pull over, it creates conflict not only with right turn movement, but with people trying to go around it and that sort of thing. So this location down here should certainly improve that situation. So we do believe that overall compliance with the guidelines is much improved by that. Now I'm going to return to the wall and this through here. The big bucks guidelines require a buffer, and certainly the conditional zoning buffer goes to the heart of that and that compliance, and they have an 8-foot wall, as I said before. The concern that staff has is that Article 18 requirements must be met, and we're concerned from viewing some pictures of the area that there aren't a lot of trees existing here per Article 18. Now it was part of the conditional zoning that some trees be put next to the residential area to the approval of those residents, but that's a conditional zoning requirement. It is not an Article 18 requirement. So we do have some concern about them meeting Article 18. There is a 5-foot buffer street associated with that wall, which is a maintenance easement that we believe would allow them some flexibility in meeting that requirement. But with that, and with your big box report and your revised conditions, staff is recommending approval of this plan, and I should, excuse me, I did overlook one thing. There was a lot of detail here. There is one item on the big box requirement that relates back to the entrances. One of the requirements is that you have entrances on any wall that faces a public street. They're offering two entrances here. They're not offering one here. And again, here's New Circle Road, where you can see you have existing businesses. You have an access point here. You have a limited amount of parking. Staff believes a waiver of that requirement is appropriate, and it says so in your report. That's also strengthened by the fact that they're putting the addition on this side of the building. Had that been reversed and they were working on this side, then we would want to discuss compliance with that requirement. But in this case, we do believe that a waiver of that guideline is certainly justified. And again, with that, with your revised conditions and with your big box report, staff is recommending approval of this plan, and we are recommending that you approve the big box report and their compliance with the design guidelines. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Ms. Copeland. Yes, Mr. Martin. Would you go through the circulation for the drive-in window? Yes, ma'am. Please. As from anywhere in here, it circulates here. They go in here, and it'll be a one-way circulation, and then by the window right here. So they'll make a loop right there. Okay. Do we need to do anything for pedestrians in that area? Well, there is a pedestrian crossing here. I mean, like change the pavement, make it go so you know you're going across. That is an excellent question, Ms. Copeland. They're not showing that there. They are showing a crossing. But those types of features certainly would add to pedestrian safety and hopefully, you know, remind those folks who have just picked up their medication to be paying attention. I don't know what to call it. It's a sound effect, but it would say pay attention. Pay attention. Surface. Yes, ma'am. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Anybody representing the Roberts Group? My name is Bob Cornett. I'm with the Roberts Group. And along with us we have Danny Lethko, the manager of real estate at Kroger, and Steve Adkins, the engineer for Kroger's. We have worked with staff. A lot of this image, those of you that have been to Richmond Road lately, it is similar in appearance. This is not quite a marketplace store. There are only two marketplace stores in Lexington. That would be the new Beaumont shopping center, Kroger's store over there, and the Richmond Road was brought up to marketplace. This is just we'd like to have done it here. There just wasn't enough room. And as Mr. Martin said, this is a fully developed shopping center, and it just is a little tough to make the big box regulations all apply 100%. And as we understand them, they are guidelines. There are some flexibility there. They're not in stone regulations like the subdivision regs. So staff has been working with us. As far as accessibility, Ms. Copeland, we did contact LexTran the very day after we left the meeting. They accommodated us. They were out there at 1 o'clock that afternoon, and he said, I'd love to put it down on Bryan Station, but I don't have a bus that goes up and down Bryan Station. So he said they have a collector that goes from Bryan Station High School, New Circle, and turns around and goes back, and there may not be two people a trip on it. We did not even notice a wear in the footpath along the Fifth Third Bank property. So we originally didn't even show the sidewalk going down to Bryan Station. We did extend the sidewalk from the White Castle sidewalk up in front of the Kroger Fuel Center along the side of the Kroger car wash. I did bring some pictures also, and I had a little markup here that colored up the existing and proposed sidewalks if you wanted them to show those on the overhead. Barbara warned me that the color kind of goes a little screwy on this overhead. But you can tell the brighter of the heavy lines is red, and it does extend over to the entrance to the Kroger Center up beside the Kroger car wash, and then there will be an accessible ramp down to the roadway. At this point, we don't have spare dirt or paved area to construct, say, a race sidewalk. Our approach was to try to go to the back of parking stalls at stop signs and create a painted accessible route to the front of the store. There is some concern by Ms. Gleason whether we can direct traffic behind parking stalls. We're going to work with her and investigate the possibility of moving up front. As the problem is, we have 10 surplus parking stalls on this shopping center according to the parking regulations. To accommodate a race sidewalk the full way, we would lose around 25 parking stalls. So then we become noncompliant with parking stalls. If we're struggling to meet tree canopy to eliminate a landscape island and run all the way across parallel to the front of Kroger to the existing shopping center, we would eliminate trees and landscape area. Then we wouldn't be in compliant with Article 18 and the tree protection plan. So had we known this 10 years ago or whenever this building was built, that 80,000 was that magic number, we could have made this store 80,001. It would be about 9,000 square foot larger than it currently is, and the big box would have been addressed at that time. But it's hard to forward think that far ahead. Who ever knew that grocery stores would be 125,000 square feet and you would need a battery-powered car to get around that? But we do have some photographs to show you that there is some heavy canopy out there. The shopping center is well-treed. I'll just kind of pass these. If anyone has a particular photo they'd like an explanation of, I'd be glad to explain where it is. Thank you. While those pictures are going around, is there anybody have any questions in regard to this? I didn't mean to be cutting you off. If you have more to say, we'd be glad to hear it. I was trying to figure out how to fill this quiet time here until somebody had a question. I'm not trying to fill it. I just didn't want to. I want things to move along, too. If Ms. Copeland, you talked like you're familiar with the shopping center, so maybe you noticed Kroger did remove and replace the entire eight-foot fence behind the property label, Tackett, Mitchell, which is the Gilkey window, the car washes. They replaced the fence with new six-by-six pressure-treated in concrete and new siding slats. They took the old slats and behind the eight-foot masonry wall at Rookwood, there is an additional six-and-a-half-foot or so wooden wall behind that. So they replaced any damaged slats in that wall with the new slats to keep the color consistent across through there. And as far as the easement that Mr. Martin explained is going to have to be adjusted, we dealt with a similar situation when we did Beaumont. We have existing water lines and gas lines that go around the back of the building, and there is a variable width that's anywhere from 40 feet to 70 feet in width. Those easements will have to be released by the utility companies, and then ultimately, if they're labeled utility easements, will have to also be released by city council, I believe, which will be council resolution. And usually the utility companies will not release an easement until their lines have been relocated and a new easement is dedicated. So it could be some time before we get to that point could actually apply for a building permit. Any other questions? Ms. Colton. Would your client, if Mrs. Gleason wants to put in the rumble guard, would you be willing to do that? We don't have a problem as long as we don't have rumble guards or rumble strips anywhere where the normal car traffic goes. Some of that material makes it extremely hard to roll a cart across. Even the ADA don'ts make it difficult sometimes to roll a cart. But we can put a colored concrete with texture on it across that driveway if that's what the sidewalk portion. This is not my call. I'm just bringing it up that we have an intersection between pedestrian and vehicular that people may not be aware of. So this is her call. Okay. Ms. Gleason, would you like to address the rumble question? Are we talking about just a different pavement texture, like a crosswalk texture or an actual kind of advanced warning rumble strip? It was my impression that it would be something that would tell the person who's driving the car this is not a car zone. It's a shared zone. I would suggest either a textured crosswalk or a highly visible crosswalk, the big, bold, thick, white, thermoplastic pavement markings would be appropriate. I do expect that there will be a lot of heavy vehicular traffic through there. And because it is between both the retail shops and the Kroger, you are likely to have pedestrian traffic through there. So I don't think that that's a bad suggestion. What I did want to comment on was to make it clear that as part of my sign-off, I intend to request a sidewalk from Bryan Station to the retail shops near the Fifth Third Bank. Any other questions for Ms. Gleason while we have her up here? Or any other questions for the petitioner or applicant? One comment. We dealt with a very similar situation, if you remember, at Leastown Road. We actually demolished the walls of a shop next to the Kroger store, left the facade of the Kroger store, and tore down the back and the roof of the building. And the pharmacy drive-through goes in, loops around, and comes right back out. We addressed some of that with caution signage for the pedestrians on the sidewalk and stop signs for the car traffic. You know, there's a shared responsibility there for everybody, and hopefully this is a very slow speed limit area. It should be a creep and a crawl at a drive-through window. Any further questions? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to comment on this development, this plan? I see and hear none. I assume you don't have any more rebuttal. Mr. Martin, do you have anything you want to add to this? Then we'll turn it over to the Commission. And remember, when we do our motion, we need to include the fact that we have reviewed the big box guidelines. It doesn't have to be a separate motion, does it? No. We'll just include it in that motion. But let's turn it over to the Commission for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Owens? Mr. Chairman, if the Commission is ready, we'll move for approval of BP 2010-22 packet property with the 12 conditions as noted, recognizing that this plan is in agreement with the big box design guidelines, as the staff has noted, with the waiver as necessary as well. You've heard the motion. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Cravens, any further discussion on the motion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chris? All right. Your next item is on page 10 of today's agenda. At the very bottom, it's item D, BP 2010-23, the Sharkey property unit 2B amended. This is for a property located at 1758 Hatter Lane. The subject property is located off of Leastown Road. It's near the back of the Sharkey development. This is basically Leastown is down here. Retail sections are in this area. This is New Circle Road and the approved apartments that are constructed here. This is the plan that Mr. Martin went over the record plat with you a few minutes ago. These are the five new single-family lots at Fronton Town Square Park, across from the other adjacent single family. These are the new nine townhouse units. They were previously located this way with an access easement behind them. These lots will share an access easement to the garages of both properties, as well as to these residents will have access to eight parking space, parking lot here. The Subdivision Committee recommended postponement of their last meeting, subject to the 14 conditions that you see on your agenda. The staff initially had some concerns over its plans, compliance with Article 9 and the group residential requirements. We did meet with the applicant, understood some of their timing issues related to this property. The staff was comfortable recommending approval after those discussions, subject to the 15 conditions you see on a revised staff report in front of you. There's also a lighter copy of findings for use of an access easement. This relates to Article 6-8M of the subdivision regulations. That is condition number 15 on your revised staff report. These units do, the building does have furniture on a public street, but the sole access to the units stacking up into the lot will be primarily off of an access easement. If you guys have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer those. Any questions for Chris? Thank you, Chris. Commissioner, applicant, whatever you might be today. Whatever. You're Jack of all trades. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with the revised 15 conditions, request your approval, and the finding that the access easement is appropriate. Any questions for Mr. Kaley? You did a good job. Anybody in the audience want to comment on this? If not, we'll assume you have no rebuttal on either side then. We'll move on to turn it over to the commission with the two staff recommendations and the access easement you have on this yellow sheet of paper. What's the pleasure of the commission? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2010-23, Sharkey property unit to be amended with the 15 conditions as presented by staff and the finding for the use of the access easement, allow sole access. Second. Second by Ms. Whitman. Any discussion? There's no discussion. We will vote when we see it on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you all. Let's move this. I think before we take up this next item, well first let's do the performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written on the memorandum dated May 13, 2010. Second by Ms. Richardson. Any discussion on the release and call of bonds? On the May 13 vote as you see it on the screen. Motion passes. Before we take up this next, our text amendment, let's take five-minute recess and we'll come right back to this. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the release and call of bonds as written. The Planning Commission will come back in order. Ms. Wade. Good afternoon, Chairman Pinn. We're anxiously awaiting your presentation. Thank you. The next item on your agenda for consideration is on page 12, and it's ZOTA 2010-1, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on April 22nd, and this is a continuation of that public hearing. One thing that has come in since the time the Planning Commission held their public hearing is a letter from the Fayette Alliance, and I've distributed that to everyone's place. It is sort of a lengthy letter, so if you have an opportunity to skim through it. It is a letter of support. At probably the end, last page, Ms. Vannago points out that they also, like the Commission, are concerned about the elimination of the rumors and borders as in accessory use and suggest that that be considered as a conditional use. Just for time's sake, I'll summarize a little bit there. Two items that I want to bring to your attention. First, since the time the Planning Commission met in April 22nd, you're aware that we also held a work session to discuss this ZOTA further, and that was on April 29th. At that time, the Commission suggested several minor changes and also discussed the possibility of drafting a statement regarding your concern about amending Article 8-5 of the Zoning Ordinance related to eliminating rumors and borders. In the week between April 29th and the Zoning Committee meeting on May 6th, the staff drafted some alternative text for the Zoning Committee to consider as well as a resolution for the Zoning Committee to look at that would be something the full Commission would review today. At the Zoning Committee meeting a week ago, the staff distributed a sheet. At that time it was blue. Today it's on the golden rod. And this is a reflection, we believe, of the discussions that the Commission has held to date, and it reflects changes to the definition of boarding or lodging house first in terms of adding a phrase in the second line, which is one or more of, to identify that one or more of the four items below need to be considered when reviewing whether a structure or building is being used as a boarding or lodging house. In terms of single-family dwelling, the Commission had considered inserting a line break, and the Zoning Committee actually wanted to recommend the insertion of a line of text, which would read, townhouses are included in this definition, so as to clarify that townhouses are a form of single-family dwelling unit and they are an attached form versus detached. And that would be in contrast to a phrase that's already existing in the two-family dwelling definition, which you can see at the bottom of the page there, which says townhouses are not included in this definition. And again, under two-family dwelling, as the Commission recommended, adding a line break to that definition. So those are the changes that the Zoning Committee is now recommending to the full Planning Commission for consideration in terms of an alternative text to the text that had been forwarded from the Council originally. The second thing in front of you today is a resolution that the staff drafted to reflect the Commission's work to date as well as their concerns regarding Article 8-5C, which relates to the elimination or the original proposal to eliminate the rental of living space for one or two roomers or boarders by a resident family. And at this point, I just wanted to say that the Zoning Committee in general recommended approval with their text changes, and they also recommended inserting a line of text to the resolution that previously wasn't there in the draft we considered at the meeting, which is the last sentence of the resolution before it says passed, and that is the Commission also wishes to express its opinion that owner occupancy of the premises should be an important consideration in the allowance of such a use. And in general, that relates to the Board of Adjustments' consideration as a conditional use rather than eliminating renters and boarders completely. Thank you, Ms. Wade. I'd be happy to answer any questions related to anything that's occurred since the beginning of the hearing. And Mr. Selley is also here with me. If there's anything else we can assist the Commission with. I should have reminded the Commission that we are continuing this hearing, our public hearing, and we're starting off kind of where we left off. I don't know whether there's anybody in the audience that wants to comment on this or not. Being that there's so few of us, I would open that up to very brief comments. If any one of the four of you all wanted to comment on it, we'd be glad to hear you at this time. You all understand what we've done. You have copies of this, and we want to be sure that we're all on the same page here. Any questions for Ms. Copeland? Can you turn your microphone on, please, Ms. Copeland? You said that there would be preference, or I understood that's not your words, my words, for if you went before the Board of Adjustment, that you were an owner-occupied. But down in Section 1, it says by resident family. It doesn't say anything about owner-occupied. Actually, in Sentence 2, under Section 1, the first sentence discusses that the Commission wishes to encourage the Council to consider making it a conditional use rather than eliminating it altogether. And then Sentence 2 highlights what the Zoning Committee wished to add, which was that the Commission also wishes to express its opinion that owner-occupancy of the premises should be an important consideration. Where is that? Oh. Oh, okay, got it. Okay. Any other discussion? Mr. King, I think before we vote, it would probably be a good idea for you at this time to tell us what we're voting on and what the process is going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would be glad to do that. As you know, the text amendment that was forwarded to you was a specific initiation, text amendment initiated by the Urban County Council. By your action today, you will have fulfilled the requirement of statute that within 60 days of the Council sending that to you, you conduct a public hearing, which you have, and convey a recommendation back to the Council. We have prepared these documents and feel that you can make these recommendations. I would note that the text changes on the golden rod copy make no change in substance at all to what the Council sent you. These are actually clarifying language that you have come up with in your review, and we are very comfortable with you making that recommendation back to the Council that they adopt this language instead of what they sent to you. And after you act, that will be communicated to Council when your final report is sent to them. Likewise, the final report that we send to the Council would include the resolution, if you do pass this resolution as well, and that will also be communicated to them to take under advisement the comments that you have made in there. They can make the change. They can choose to make that change, I believe, as they consider the text amendment, or they could refer that matter on for further review and discussion by them. But you will have been on the record that you felt that this is a matter that they should consider. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. King? Staff, have any other comments you want to make on it this time? I would just say that Ms. Boland and I had a conversation yesterday, since there was some concern about the finding number two, which related to rumors and borders, that it may be preferable for the Commission not to adopt the findings. I think we have sufficient in the resolution, and I was suggesting just to make it very clear and concise to the Council, if in that third whereas clause of the resolution, if we just adjust that to read, whereas the Planning Commission supports the intent of this legislation and has made a recommendation of approval of these proposed text amendments, with some minor changes suggested as shown in the attached alternative text. That way, this goldenrod copy will be incorporated with and become part of your resolution, and you can forward your recommendation simply by a motion that adopts this resolution, and it basically will put all of your discussions and your final suggestions within a single document, in addition to the report that Mr. King said will be forwarded to them. Okay. Do we understand that? All right. Any further questions? I would only comment there are a couple of minor typos, call them scrivener type errors in the draft resolution. We will fix those before they go on as well. All right. Mr. Onwins. Chris, you know, obviously there's a lot of work here that's very good work. I think the Council as well as the Commission both considered, discussed, and would like to see further consideration as far as parking at some point in time. How do we convey that? You can convey that as well by making an addition to this, but I would let you know that the same group that worked and came up with this stood in front of the Council and indicated that they understood and felt parking was important, so that's already been communicated to the Council, and that group does intend to meet again to talk about that issue. Any other questions before we entertain a motion? I think it's on the record from the hearing April 22nd that was a concern as well. All right. Mr. Chairman. Ms. Richardson. I move to forward the text amendments to Articles 1, 7, and 8 to redefine family and other definitions, to define and require conditional use permits for a functional family, to eliminate the keeping of roomers or boarders in a single and two-family residential zone, and to add a definition of fraternity or sorority house, along with the recommendation of approval expressed by the adoption of resolutions prepared by Chris King. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Nothing is happening. There we go. It's jumping all over. There we go. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all. All right. We've got a couple other items we need to talk about. Mr. Chairman, if I could refer the commission to the bottom of page 14, commission item A. We would suggest that you take action at this time to cancel your next regularly scheduled meeting on May 27th. That is the Monday prior to Memorial Day. I like the idea of allowing you all to have a nice long weekend that weekend. Zoning commission members have to come. We're just more efficient, you know. All right. May 27th. Yes, your May 27th meeting. We have no items to place on an agenda that day. That's an editorial comment. We're looking for a motion to. It doesn't pay me to think. I just moderate. We do need a motion to change our meeting date. I move that we cancel our meeting on Thursday, May the 27th. Is there a second? Second. All right. Vote when you see it on the screen. Mr. Holmes, you have a nice meeting. Mr. Salley, you have another item for us? Mr. Chairman, I do. If I could refer you to the top of your addendum on page 16, item B. The staff would suggest that the commission consider the possibility of moving your work session next week to a 1 o'clock start. The Urban County Council has scheduled a meeting for 3 o'clock next week in this chamber. We do not have all of your work session items listed yet, but that would at least give the commission a full two hours to have an ordinary work session, if you wish. All right. You've heard that suggestion that we start at 1 o'clock on May the 20th? It is on your approved meeting and filing schedule, so it does take action of the commission to make that change. So moved. Second. Vote when you see it on the screen. Mercy, Mr. Wilson, the big dog. He may be late next week, I sense. Finally, the most controversial of all the items, the very last item on page 16, item C. Again, we have no items to place on your agenda for the zoning committee on Thursday, June 3rd, and so we would suggest that you consider taking action at this time to cancel that meeting, should it be desired by the entire commission. I'm sure the subdivision committee would welcome you if you want to come on to that meeting. I did that and I'll probably do it again. All right. We need a motion to cancel the zoning committee part of our committee. So moved. Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor, vote when you see it on the screen. Oh, mercy. The ladies are getting restless here today, aren't they? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Salih. I would certainly hope we're about to the end of our agenda here. Do you have anything else for us, Mr. King? Do you have anything else for us? Meeting is adjourned. Mr. Penn, there's an audio conference next Wednesday. It states on the top of page 15 of the agenda, there is an audio conference next Wednesday at 4 o'clock, design review for officials. All right. It shows on page 15 of the agenda. On page 15 of your agenda, notice that I haven't found it here. Training opportunity. Here it is. Thank you, Ms. Reichert. If you could let me know. If anybody wants to come, just let me know by Tuesday afternoon so we can have them up here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.