YMCA! They have everything From your mental joy You can hang out with all the boys YMCA! It's fun to stay at the YMCA! Young man, young man There's no need to feel down Young man, young man Kick yourself off the ground YMCA! You'll find it at the YMCA! Young man, young man Does it all by himself Young man, young man Put your pride on the shelf I had nothing to do On this hot afternoon But to settle in and write you a line I've been meaning to phone you But from Minnesota Hell, it's been a very long time You wear it plain A little old-fashioned But that's alright Well, I suppose you're thinking I'll bet he's sinking Or he wouldn't get in touch with me Though I ain't begging For losing my head I sure do want you to know That you wear it plain There ain't a lady in the land So fine, oh my Remember them baseball parties Your brother's karate The all-day rock and roll shows Them homesick blues And the radical blues I haven't left a mark on you You wear it well A little out of time But I don't mind But I ain't forgetting That you were once mine Thought I blew it Without even trying Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Since you've been gone I've been thinking I've been thinking But I ain't forgetting That you were once mine Thought I blew it Without even trying Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Trying to get, try to get a letter to Now I'm eating my heart out Kyrie eleison Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out Now I'm eating my heart out The meeting will come to order, please. We have minutes to approve. April 22nd. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of minutes as written from April 22nd, 2010. Second, Ms. Richardson. When you see it on the screen, we'll vote. Motion passes, thank you. Postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Mike Moyser, on behalf of the applicant for item 3B at the bottom of page 5 of your agenda, DP 2010-26, Griffin Gate Office Park, we're requesting postponement to July 8th. To July 8th? Yes. Mr. Salih. Mr. Chairman, that is your next meeting devoted to subdivision and development plan items. You've heard the request for a postponement to May 8th. Anybody in the audience that wants to react to that postponement? Seeing none, the commission will entertain a motion to postpone this to July 8th meeting. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Coleman. I move postponement of DP 2010-26 to July 8th. Second. All those in favor, vote when you see it on the screen. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Rory. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. The first item on the first page, plan 2010-13P, Fairway Lands, Unit 11, request a one-month postponement to July 8th. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to reject this postponement? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to postpone this to July 8th. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for postponement of plan 2010-13P until July 8th. Motion has been made and seconded. Vote when you see it on the screen. Postpone to July 8th. Thank you. And on page 5. Under Development Plans, item A, DP 2006-65, Blackford Property, Phases 1 and 2, we request a one-month postponement until July 8th on this plan as well. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to object to this postponement to July 8th? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move postponement for DP 2006-65, the Blackford Property, Phases 1 and 2, amended. For one month to July 8th. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Cravens. Vote when you see it on the screen, please. Postpone to July 8th. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, staff does have one. Mr. Martin? On page 7, at the bottom, item G, this is DP. Is my microphone on? Can you hear me? Is your microphone on? My button is on. It's red. Can you hear me? Speak a little louder. I try not to because I don't want to blow you. No, you go right ahead. On page 7, item G, at the bottom of your page, DP 2008-137. This is Mohamed Siraji Property, amended. It is located at 432 South Broadway. We have received written and verbal requests from that applicant to postpone for two weeks, which would be 6-24-10, your zoning public hearing date. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to object to this postponement? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to postpone this to June 24th. Two weeks. Is June 24th right, Mr. Salih? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of DP 2008-137, Mohamed Siraji Property, until June 24th, 2010. Motion has been made and seconded. Vote when you see it on the screen. It's postponed to June 24th. Any other postponements or withdrawals? If not, we'll move into the consent agenda. Mr. Salih. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are a number of items on your meeting agenda that do qualify for consideration at this time for your consent agenda. The first appears on page 2, item A of your meeting agenda. This would be Plan 2010-49F, Thomas H. and Ann C. Asbury Property. This is a proposed subdivision located at 4810 Briar Hill Road. There is an affidavit required for this plan for the posting of a sign to advertise today's meeting. We would hope to see that before you take action on this plan. The next item on your consent agenda appears on page 3. It's item C of your meeting agenda, Plan 2010-51F, Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7. This is for property located at 1136 Providence Lane. The next item on your consent agenda is on page 3, item D of your meeting agenda. This is Plan 2007-242F, R.K. Management. This is for property located at 601 Add Color Drive. And this is a final subdivision plan recommended for reapproval by the staff. There is a finding necessary to approve this plat, and I believe those findings have been placed at your place on the pink sheet of paper. The next item on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda. Page 3, item E, Plan 2008-114F, Covey Ridge Development Company. This is an amended final record plat for property located at 5527 Athens Boonesboro Road. The next three items on your consent agenda are also in consecutive order on your meeting agenda. They are all on page 3 of your meeting agenda, items F, G, and H. Plan 2008-138F, Meadow Oaks, Unit 1A. Excuse me, I think that's page 4. Thank you. We have a typo on the consent agenda. I apologize for that. These are items F, G, and H on your meeting agenda, page 4. Plan 2008-138F, Meadow Oaks, Unit 1A, a portion also known as Ashford Oaks. It's also a portion of Unit 1B, which is Plan 2008-139F. And item H is Plan 2008-140F, Meadow Oaks, Unit 1C. These are all for property that's a portion of 3414 Feliciano Lane. These are all sections of these units that were approved originally by the Planning Commission in 2008. They are recommended for reapproval by the staff. There are two remaining items that qualify for consideration on your consent agenda. Next is on page 6, item C, DP 2010-27, an amended final development plan for Baptist Healthcare Systems, Incorporated for property located at 1740 Nicholasville Road. The final item qualifying for consideration at this time is the next item on your meeting agenda, page 6, item D, DP 2010-28, Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Barton Way Office Park, Phase 2 Development, Lot 17, amended. This is an amended final development plan for property located on Sir Barton Way. Mr. Chairman, we have been provided the affidavit for the item I mentioned, the very first item on your consent agenda. The design does appear to be in order, according to the photograph and the affidavit. These items can be considered for approval at this time by the Commission, unless a member of the Commission would like to remove one of the items for further discussion or a member of the audience would like to do the same. Thank you. First, let me ask, is there anybody in the audience that wants to speak to one of these? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. The last item on the list on page 6, item D, DP 2010-28, Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Barton Way Office Park, Phase 2 Development, Lot 17. We would like to remove this from the consent agenda and go to full discussion to discuss item 17 on the conditions. We have an alternate solution for the entrance that we want to discuss. All right, sir, that will be pulled off and we'll have a hearing on that. Yes. So we're removing item D on page 6 from the consent agenda. Ms. Copeland? Yes, Chairman Penn. I request that DP 2010-27, the Baptist Healthcare Systems amended development plan, be pulled off so that in the interest of public information, we have that reported. All right. You've heard those requests to pull those two off. I also heard the others on your list. Anything else that needs to be addressed before we vote on the consent agenda? If not, when you see it on the screen, we'll vote on the consent agenda eliminating the bottom two. Yeah, I guess I need a vote. I have to have a motion before you can vote, don't I? Yeah, I'll entertain a motion. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of the consent agenda as read, with the exception of pulling off the last two items, DP 2010-27, Baptist Healthcare, and DP 2010-28, Hamburg Place Farm. Okay, you've heard the motion. Second by Ms. Whitman. Vote when you see it on the screen. All right. The consent agenda passes with those deletions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Staff will prepare the first plan for full discussion by the Commission in just a moment. And we'll be ready to present that to you. Okay. I just missed it, yeah. We're ready when you are. If you all would turn to page two of today's agenda, we're looking at plan 2010-50F, Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Barton Way Office Park, phase two, lots 16, 17, and 18. This is a final subdivision plot. They are located on Sir Barton Way. This property is the north arrow is kind of heading sideways. This is Winchester Road, I-75. We have Sir Barton Way. Walmart is over here. We have a last piece of property on the east side of Sir Barton Way between 75, I-75. They're currently wanting to subdivide the property into three lots. We also have a final development plan, which we'll speak about later, which shows the development of the property. This was reviewed by the subdivision committee and recommended for approval with 20 conditions. And I can't get that on there. The first eight are sign-offs for the different agencies. And then we have 11 cleanup conditions, just notes that needed to be added or corrected. And we have a waiver to the improvements for the property that need to be made before recording. And Tom is going to go over that information. Is there anything else? Any other questions? Are there any questions for Cheryl? If not, then I guess we'll hear the waiver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, you do have in front of you the waiver request that is associated with this property. It is a waiver request that would allow the coordination of the required sanitary sewer construction with the construction of the development on this site. And again, as Cheryl explained to you, you have Sir Barton Way here with I-75 that form boundaries of this property. This lot was originally or is currently one large remnant lot created by the dedication of Sir Barton Way and the creation of the Walmart Lowe's property here in this north of the property. They are proposing this subdivision to you today. And again, it is a requirement of your subdivision regulations that sewer be provided to a lot when it's subdivided. Again, the development plan, which is later on your agenda, shows development on Lot 17. They would like to coordinate, again, this sanitary sewer line with the development of Lot 17. It is 1,200 feet approximately of 8-inch sewer. There is a creek crossing, which will require DOW approval. There is considerable easements. There will be a road bore under gray lag. There are easements here. We've outlined this one for you. There is also a 30-foot forced main sanitary sewer easement along the back of the property. There is a 40-foot KU easement on the rear of this property. This that splits Lot 18, this is a 50-foot high-pressure gas main that serves the city of Winchester. So these are constraints imposed on this lot. This is something they have to cross. There's other utility easements they'll have to cross. I believe the applicant's experience in this area has shown them that rock can be an issue. It can't blast in the vicinity of the gas line. So they have to be very careful how they install the line. So again, there are some interesting constraints facing this property. Staff has reviewed the applicant's request, and engineering has reviewed it as well and discussed it at length with the applicant. And staff is recommending approval of the waiver. There are conditions, one of which is that they denote on the plan that no certificate of occupancy can be issued for Lot 17 until that line is constructed in accordance with the engineering manuals and accepted. It will also be a requirement that when that plat is signed, that a surety will have to be in place before it is signed and recorded. So that adds, in staff's estimation, tremendous security to ensure that that line will be constructed to serve these lots. And again, it will serve both lots once it's constructed. The intent is just to coordinate this construction with the development of Lot 17. And I might add that Lot 16 on this plat is a non-buildable lot. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to. Is the lot that you just made reference to, is that the lot that is farthest south? I'm sorry, Ms. Phillips, could you repeat? The lot that you just referred as being unbuildable, is that the southernmost lot? It is this long, narrow lot here. It is unbuildable. It is an AU lot. With the setbacks and constraints, they have designated this as a non-buildable lot. These will be the only two that can be developed. You have this development plan subject to your approval for Lot 17. In the future, there will be one for Lot 18 at such time they wish to develop Lot 18. How deep is that? This lot, at this point, it is only 76.5 feet deep right here. Here it is 120, just over 120 feet deep right here. This is the longest line. As you can see, it's kind of the long pork chop or steak shape. It's over 600 feet here. It's quite deep. What's the purpose if there's going to be a buildable lot of creating a separate lot? If it's not available for development, for future development, then why not incorporate it into the lot immediately? We'll have to answer that question. It would be just speculation on my part. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Commissioner or applicant? Mr. Chairman, again, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering, and I represent the applicant. We are in agreement with the 19 conditions that are listed, and I think Mr. Martin did an excellent job kind of describing what we're doing, and I would be glad to answer any questions you may have. Did you say the 19 or the 20 conditions? The 20s just basically discuss the waiver. So you're okay with having that discussion? Yes. Okay, so the 20 conditions I'm okay with. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, the 20th condition in the staff report for the waiver, the staff is recommending an additional condition there, so there would still be 20. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Phillips. Mr. Carter, could you explain why that remnant lot, which is undevelopable, is separated out and being subdivided off and not incorporated into the adjacent? In the past, well, a couple of reasons. In the past, any remnant property left over needed to be platted, this property was not platted, so kind of as a cleanup we wanted to plat it. It really serves no purpose for lot 17. It's unusable. They don't wish to own it. They don't want to maintain it, and currently it's maintained by Hamburg's Association. Will the lot then be dedicated to Hamburg's Association as a non-developable lot? With the plat, it will be designated as a non-developable lot. Whether it's the Hamburg Association, I do not know, but it's still owned by the Madden family. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to speak to this? Does staff have any other rebuttal remarks? Petitioner, I assume you're all right then. We'll turn it over to the commission. Remember, you have the waiver and you have the amendment to subdivide the lot. Mr. Chairman, does the waiver have to be done separately? No, ma'am, it can be incorporated into a single motion if you wish. Mr. Brewer? I move for approval, if everybody's ready. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2010-50, Hamburg Place Farm, including the waiver for the recommendation reasons provided by staff. You've heard the motion seconded by Mr. Cravens. Any discussion on the motion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Thank you. Mr. Martin, what were we supposed to do with that development plan? The development plan is on your agenda. It is after this next item. Now, if you would wish to change the order. No, that's fine. I just want to be sure we didn't skip it. Sir, we're not going to let you do that. I hope not. The next item on your agenda is on page 6. It is item C, DP 2010-27, Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc., amended. This is an amended development plan for Central Baptist Hospital located on Nicholasville Road. In this rendering, you have Nicholasville Road here with the Central Baptist Hospital frontage, Hilltonia Park to the south, Associated Development and a little office park to the north, the University of Kentucky and what Shawneetown is here to the rear. This particular amendment you can see highlighted in gray are the additions that are being proposed on this plan. There is a total of over 400,000 additional square feet being added in these areas to the Central Baptist Hospital. This area alone constitutes most of it, 400,000 just over. These smaller areas come to approximately 37, almost 38,000 square feet. They're adding a parking garage. There is already parking. You can see surface parking being proposed here along with the main entrance here, this entrance. This entrance up here will go away. This is, by the way, the old church property. This is where the church is situated. There's going to be well over a million square feet on this property at full build-out, over 3,000 parking spaces when it is all ultimately developed. It is quite a large addition, as you can see. Along here we have a conditional zoning requirement for a buffer. This was imposed several years ago when they rezoned the Central Baptist Church property. Over the years, as it has developed and there's been some amendments, there was also an issue about access back here to university court. They have pursued that access as well as they may. It is decisions ultimately that of the University of Kentucky's, and at this time, they've not agreed to an access point there. Staff had hoped that it would be a full access point, vehicular, pedestrian, and a full one. What has been achieved and what is an item on your agenda is a pedestrian and bicycle connection that's going to take place in this area, and that is to allow full or perhaps better integration of this property with the overall greenway and bikeway plan for the community. Now, the plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee. It was recommended for approval. There are a number of conditions, as you can see. These are very standard sign-offs and cleanup conditions, and that's not to be, you know, on a plan of this size and this scope, that's not unusual to have a fair number of conditions. The key being that we have all the major divisions of the government reviewing this plan. The others, as I said, are strictly cleanup conditions. There will need to be a consolidation file to bring this property all together, because currently the church property and the hospital property are still two separate properties. As I mentioned, the conditional zoning landscape buffer, it is going to be constructed during phase one. That was an issue that was imposed due to zone change. It has not been built as of this date. But obviously due to the size and scale of this addition, it is certainly time for that conditional zoning, that berm and landscaping to be constructed. As you can see, that they are going to need to denote the timing of that construction as one of your conditions. And as I mentioned before, we're asking that they denote the location of the pedestrian and bike connection to the adjoining property. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions, Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, I might have missed it. The construction entrance is going to be where on this? We have asked them to denote the construction entrance, and I'm not sure if they've actually added that information to the plan as yet. I'll just hold that for the applicant. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Commissioner? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Rena Wiseman. I'm here today for Baptist Healthcare Systems. Skip Alexander, the Director of Construction for the hospitals project, is also here and is available for questions, as is Ben Edlin from HDR Engineering. First off, we are in agreement with the conditions that Tom has outlined for you. A little bit of background is, and I'm not sure that any of you were on the Commission in 2002, but what you're seeing today really goes back to the planning process that started back then when the hospital was running out of room. Its space is outdated. Some parts of the building at 1740 go back to the original building in 1954. And for that reason, the hospital purchased what was then the Central Baptist Church property. We appeared before you for a zone change, and it was approved by this body, approved by the Council, with numerous conditions that Tom has outlined. And we also had a separate agreement with the Neighborhood Association, who are very concerned, obviously, with anything that happens on the property. What we're showing today is really similar to what we needed back in 2002, was to relocate the women's program. Most of you are familiar that this is known as the baby hospital. The maternity space is cramped, and so that, as well as other existing services, are going to be relocated to the addition that's shown on the rendered site plan. This will also allow the hospital to finally convert to all private rooms. That's the trend now. And so we will be able to put in a floor and a half of single hospital rooms in this addition, not adding any beds, but now all the rooms will be private. There were also, this was not fully contemplated in 2002, but this addition will allow the hospital to put all of the cancer treatment facilities in one space. They're now spread throughout the hospital. Now they can be in one location, and there will actually be a dedicated entrance for cancer patients, because obviously some of the treatments that people go through, it's rather sensitive, and they will have a place where they can go for those treatments. So what was trying to be accomplished in 2002 is what we're bringing today. We also had shown a parking structure, and it's in a similar location as was shown to you then. The parameters of the conditional zoning and the agreement with the neighborhood are all being followed. We agreed to a 100-foot building setback on the north property line. This was a concern of the Shawnee Place neighbors. We don't adjoin Shawnee Place. There's actually a narrow strip of office buildings between us and that neighborhood, but because of the scope of the project, they wanted some additional buffers. So there's a 100-foot building line setback, which is met on this plan, and actually the addition is significantly further back than the 100 feet. We also agreed to a 50-foot landscape buffer with the berm that Tom has alluded to, and phase one will include putting that road in as well as that landscape buffer. The ordinance and the zoning ordinance that was adopted incorporates some specific plantings, but it also provides that the hospital will work with the Shawnee Place neighborhood to develop specific plantings to do something maybe a little above and beyond what would just normally be required. In terms of access, the main access will continue to be Cherokee Park and Arcadia Park. At this point, it's our expectation that Arcadia Park will be the construction entrance for the project. There is still an existing driveway on the north part of the property that was Central Baptist Churches, and that will be closed. So going back over the many years I've been up here on this plan, which is kind of hard to believe, at one time there were seven access points for Central Baptist Hospital, and that didn't even include the property we're speaking of today, now down to two on Nicholsville Road. So that has really improved to the extent you can improve Nicholsville Road. I think it's helped eliminate many points of conflict. There is also a 100-foot buffer along Nicholsville Road for this property, which continues the landscaping that Central Baptist has put out in front of the existing property. I think those are the high points of this plan. We have talked with Cindy Dietz, and we'll work with her about the connection in the back that will allow people who are biking down Nicholsville Road and now currently turn up Hiltonia Park and go through the parking lot. That will now be more formalized, and there will be a connection put in. Again, that will be for Cindy to determine where she wants it and what kind of signage that she suggests, because it's our understanding people are using it now, so we want to make it function better. We do have a requirement on the plan that before we file any amendment to a Central Baptist plan, we give notice to the neighbors 20 days in advance. That was done on this plan. Mr. Alexander met with the neighbors and showed them the plan before we filed it, and I think it's a tribute to the hard work that he and his staff have done over the many years that unlike many of the other hearings that we've had on this property, we don't have a room full of people in here upset about it. The last thing I would say is that this does underscore the commitment that the hospital has to this part of the community. When the hospital announced its plans for Hamburg, there was a lot of concern about what would happen to this campus, and I think this level of this commitment, which is at this point over $200 million, shows a substantial commitment to this location, to this part of the community, of the hospital. So we think that's an important thing for the community and for the commission. With that, again, if you have any specific questions, we'd be happy to answer them. We do agree with all the conditions that are set forth and request your approval. Any questions for Ms. Wiseman? If not, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move approval. Are there any citizens' comments? Anybody in the audience need to comment on this? If not, then we'll turn it over to the commission. Mr. Chair, I move approval of DP 2010-27, Baptist Health Care Systems Incorporated, amended, with all the 21 conditions as listed. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? If not, then we'll vote when we see it on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. I guess we're ready for you. Let's go right back to Hamburg again. Tell us where you are, Cheryl, on your agenda. I'm on page 6, at the bottom of page 6. We're looking at DP Plan 2010-28. This is the Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Barton Way. This is a final development plan. We're just looking at the record plat shortly. We were talking about these three lots that they were coming in to subdivide. We have Winchester Road, I-75, and we're on Sir Barton Way. With this, they are wanting to add a building approximately 30,000 square feet plus and associated parking on the property. They have one entrance right now that they have lined up across with another entrance that was there with the earlier development, and they also have another entrance that they've proposed over here, which is now bordering on two lots. The P1 zone where they're putting this building and this other piece of property that you were looking at is zoned AU, so this allows them to have access also to that piece of property. The subdivision committee reviewed this and approved it with 17 conditions. The first nine are just typical sign-offs. We have some cleanup conditions and some other notes. It talks about relocating Sir Barton access share to both lots 16 and 17. That's what we're showing now on this new plan that they brought in to us and to remove the northern access point on Sir Barton Way. When they originally brought this in, they wanted this access across to only have one way in, a right-in, right-out with no complete intersection. What they're doing now is they're proposing to have this as a complete intersection with left-turn lanes coming from either direction, and this access over here that is bordering on the two pieces of property, they're going to have a right-in, right-out, so that there's no way to cut across the median. With that, we believe those improvements help this flow better. All right. Any other questions? Are there any questions for Cheryl? Cheryl, as far as the median or median cuts, I think, as you said, what they're asking for now, right-in, right-out, on the southern part, is there a median cut there? There was originally a median cut here, but they were proposing only to have one right-in, right-out. They didn't want to have these people coming across and making a left-hand turn at this entrance. There is a median cut there. Right. There is one there. There's not one there. No. Okay. No. The applicant and Traffic Engineering have met out on the site and reviewed over this. So if you have any other questions about that, they could probably help you out. Any other questions for Cheryl? If not, thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, again, my name is Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. And I have with me today the developers of the property, Steve Wright and Jimmy Ball, and their construction manager, Steve Tanksley, should you have any questions regarding the building. We are in agreement with the conditions as shown. Item 14, we would like to remove the right-in, right-out that we had originally proposed. After meeting with traffic on site, we agree that the right-in, right-out was not a good situation. Having it a full entrance does make it safer. And with the addition of the left turn lanes into our property and also a left turn lane into the property across the street, will be a benefit to that intersection. The intersection to the south, effectively it's a right-in, right-out, because there is no median cut there anymore. So that should not have any, it may alleviate some of the traffic at the northern intersection. So we think that will be a bonus. I have met with traffic on site, and we did go over the site distance. And I think Mr. Neal would be in agreement that site distances aren't a problem from either side of the road. If you have any questions for me, I would be glad to answer. Any questions for Mr. Carter? Mr. Craven? So you're saying you want to remove number 17 on this? Yes, I would like to remove number 17. Any other questions? I do have a question. The way number 14 reads, relocate Sir Barton access to denote shared access to both lot 16 and 17. Is that just a note saying that there's cross access across? That condition was drafted before your revised submission. I think from the staff perspective, that condition has been met and can be deleted if the commission wishes. That was based on the earlier submission. Okay. So you'd like to delete 14 and 17? Is staff all right with number 17? Mr. Chairman, we've talked with the Traffic Engineering Department, and they are amenable to this plan. So, yes, staff is amenable. So delete 14 and 17? Yes, sir. Yes, I see Mr. Neal nodding in the back of the room. I tell you, Mr. Neal, if you will come forward and let's button this up while we're working on it. Okay. Mr. Neal, the question from the commission is, if you will take the hand, Mike, and go over to the development plan and show us exactly how these entrances work. Well, what's being shown on the plan now would be to make this a complete all-direction access point. And what we, whenever we met out there, I know it's different than what I said last week. This would actually be the preferred location. But this is the second best option. It addresses a couple of concerns. There's currently no left turn lane into this property right now. And so that will help facilitate traffic moving in that direction. And there is adequate sight distance in both directions. It's actually better on this side than this side, which is existing now. And we're going to close this median up. And that pretty much is everything we came up with so far. That's correct. They were showing a right-in, right-out at an existing median opening originally. And what we were thinking is we've tried that in other places with little success other than to bust a few tires. And what people do is if they want to try to get to this building here, they will generally, if there's a median opening, they will pass that up, they will go in that way if at all possible. And so we thought we'd just open this up and make it a little bit more clear where they should be going. That would help things out. The median is already cut. It will be modified for the additional left turn lanes into there. And they are setting it up for lot 18 here. There's an access easement. So there will be cross connection here at some point, depending on what develops on that lot. They're proposing a right-in, right-out here without a median opening. Yes. Yes, it's right there on the line. Well, I guess on the map here, the first one is here at Wal-Mart. It serves the U.K. credit union. That's a signalized intersection. The next one here so far is just for the credit union, for exiting traffic mainly. This is the next access point. There are two buildings here. Yes. This is an existing opening. It's right-in, right or, excuse me, a T intersection right now. And it's not likely that it will develop any further. Yes. Kind of hard to tell the future of what's going to happen here. There's potentially another full access point there. Well, Sir Barton is a collector street, and so you can have closer access points than an arterial street. I know right now it's signed for 35, but 45 is probably the going rate out there. So until, I guess, I'm not sure what's going to happen with that. I don't know if it's an enforcement issue or design issue. But I guess as more traffic gets out there and people start milling around even more, it will be used as less of a cut-through but more as an access to the businesses here. I'm a big fan of left-turn desal lanes. So anytime we have a meeting, I like to get a left-turn lane. Marie, if we will, everybody needs to speak up. She's having a hard time picking that up. Okay. Use your mics is what we're doing. Go right ahead. Is there any potential for the orphan land to become a park and ride place? Has that been discussed? Not to my knowledge. I don't know if someone else could answer that. As far as I know, it has not. I'm not sure if other locations in the Hamburg area have been discussed for park and ride or not. We can certainly ask our transportation planning staff that question and get that answered to you. Because it looks like we have the potential to have go in, come out, and just two rows of parking. Any other questions for Mr. Neal? Questions for Mr. Neal? Jeff, I've got one. My concern is lot 16, the undeveloped lot there. If that develops to the point where you have to put another full access in and out both sides of the road, then I don't see why that we'd want to do that twice if we thought that was going to be an issue. And it looks to me like you could do one there and serve both of those pieces of property rather than have to do two down the road. Explain to me why that's not a good idea. I guess we're trying to work with what is shown to us right now. I'm not sure where the non-buildable note came from, but if it remains as a non-buildable lot, there shouldn't be an action. I think I misspoke. I'm talking about the other lot down here. Oh, this lot? Yes. Slot number 18? 18. I'm concerned that we'll come back at a fairly recent time and we'll develop that lot, gas line and all, and we'll have to have another full in and out there, when if we were thinking about both those pieces of property, it looks like one could serve both those lots instead of having to do two. Now, tell me where I'm wrong there. Well, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. That would be a good solution to this. The fewer access points, the better. But we do already have an existing access point there. And if somebody wants to go in across from it, it's kind of standard practice is we let them go in. As long as they meet the spacing. I believe on Sir Barton Way, since it's a collector, they're at least 400 feet apart. OK. I just had to ask it. Devil made me do it, I guess. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Neal or Mr. Carter? If not, thank you, Jim. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to comment on this? Staff, do you have any rebuttal? Mr. Carter, you said everything you need to say on this. OK, so where we are now is we're going to delete 14 and 17. Is that agreeable with both parties? Carol, you're OK with that? All right. If nobody in the audience wants to comment on this, we'll turn it over to the commission with the deletion of number 14 and number 17. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cravens. My electronic board's not working, but the microphone is, I guess. I'd like to move approval of DP 2010-28, deleting number 14 and number 17. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? If not, we'll vote when we see it on the screen. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Thank you. It's happening everywhere. Oh, you're not able to vote at all? It's funny to me that your vote's being recorded, but it's not showing up on the screen. Mike, I don't know what to tell you. I don't know what to tell you. Mr. Salley, as soon as we work on this just a minute, we'll certainly. Have we fixed the problem or are we just going to jump around? All right. Mr. Salley, I think we'll muddle through this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next item on your agenda is at the top of page 7. This is DP 2010-29, amendment number 12 to the final development plan for Red Coach of Lexington, phase 4, section 2. Again, there is another typo on the agenda. This is phase 4, section 2, not phase 5, section 2. This property is located at 3461 Red Coach Trail, and we have put an aerial photo of this property on the overhead. I have a few overheads to share with you this afternoon for this property. This plan was recommended for postponement by your subdivision committee at their meeting one week ago, and we have not had a revised submission since your subdivision committee meeting and today. What is new, though, is the staff has some site statistic information to share with you today that we did not have at your meeting last week. This development plan proposes adding six townhouse units to the subject property, or at least I should say it initially proposed six. Just before your subdivision committee meeting, we received an amended application from the applicant to only request five townhouses. A lot of what I will be talking to you in the next five or 10 minutes, hopefully not that long, are the difference in the five and the six unit townhouse proposals and to explain the staff's review of this development plan for you. We did pass out a staff handout with four exhibits, and I do have a number, as I mentioned, of things to show you on the display. First, though, I'd like to orient you to the location of the subject property on Red Coach Trail. You know where Kirk Levington Park is, then you'll be familiar with the location of the subject property. Kirk Levington Park is south of New Circle Road, which is off this map, north of Manowar Boulevard between Nicholasville Road and Tate's Creek Road. And to hone in a little closer on the location of the subject property, Wilson Downing Road connects Nicholasville and Tate's Creek. Redding Road connects at Tate's Creek and goes as far as Lansdowne Drive. Kirk Levington Park is at the corner of Redding Road and Spangler Drive, which almost connects as far south as Wilson Downing. Another major collector in this area is Laredo Drive, which has a T intersection just to the west of the park onto Redding Road and extends southward in the direction of Spangler and further has another signalized intersection with Tate's Creek. The subject property is immediately located on the west side of Kirk Levington Park at its southwest corner. And it is a property not quite one acre in size. Again, to orient you to the location where we're talking about on the aerial photo, this is a blow up of that area. Park is here, southwest corner, that little treed area. This is Laredo Drive. The subject property is on Red Coach Trail at this location. It formerly was used as a outdoor pool and clubhouse for a rather large townhouse development that's been known as Red Coach of Lexington for a number of years. The proposal is that the association would like to sell their common property for development of five or six townhouses and then use the proceeds of that sale for the overall condominium development. Moving to the next photo, this is the current development plan that was submitted earlier this month. It is on your agenda today. It is the top of the two on the left there on the overhead board. Again, this is Laredo Drive. The park property is here. Pool and clubhouse were shown here in the photo. And this proposes an access point to the private street of Red Coach Trail with five townhouses. We could put back the original submission for this property using the same orientation, slightly different scale. Originally, there were six townhouses approved for this property. Again, this is the line with the park here for orientation, four and two along a single access point. As we reported to you at your committee meeting last week, there were problems with this development meeting the restrictions of the R3 zone in terms of lot coverage and floor area restrictions. And that was not resolved with the submission of the latest development plan for five townhomes. Site statistics still had some problems in demonstrating compliance with the R3 zone. In the staff handouts, the third page of the handout shows you the submitted site statistics. And I'd like to focus now on the last page of the staff exhibit, which are the calculations we've done since your subdivision committee. What's on the overhead at this time is the site statistics with the drawing that is on the first page of the staff handouts. The site is just under an acre in size. The density proposed is just under 14 and 1⁄2 units per acre. The open space is met by the proposed development. And that is viewing it in total with the property immediately to the south. That is significant because in the history of looking back to this development plan, that is how this area has been deemed to be compliant with the Article 9 provisions of the zoning ordinance, or both properties together. The property that is not rendered is not proposed for amendment. Those townhouses exist, as the photo indicated, and there's no proposed change for them. The six units proposed are on the corner of the property. I could refer you to the recommendation from your subdivision committee. There are 19 conditions listed should this plan be approved. I'd like to go over a half dozen of those with you. To correct the purpose of amendment note, that is just to simplify that we're adding six units here. That is condition number eight. Condition number 12, there will need to be some tree canopy provided for this new redevelopment for the six townhouse units. Again, a fairly standard condition. The first seven conditions are ordinary types of sign-offs, as are conditions 9, 10, and 11. Condition number 13, relocate units to comply with a 20-foot perimeter setback from park. One of the problems with this plan has been that the townhouse units next to the park have been too close to that line. Staff believes that they are capable of being averaged to meet a 20-foot setback. That can be accomplished with the two units placed exactly at 20 feet from the park boundary, this unit being closer, as close as five feet into that, this unit being five feet farther back to where this average setback equals 20 feet. There is not an easement along this side of the property the way that there is on this side of the property, so this averaging is possible, as long as the overall average of the back of those four townhouses maintains 20 feet. The next three conditions, 14 through 16, are cleanup conditions that also relate, again, to the last page of the staff handout. We have calculated that the number of dwelling units would be 12. The lot coverage is allowed in the R3 zone to be a maximum of 25%, and using the foot parent proposed of a 20 by 41-foot townhouse unit for these six units, and doing the math, the calculation would come up to 25.06% lot coverage. There is not a variance possible to lot coverage. The only relief from that is a rezoning of the property. Staff believes that a much more prudent way to change this townhouse development to meet the 25-foot restriction would be to ask the developer to reduce by four square feet per unit the lot coverage. That could be done with things like indentations on the townhouses without having to go through the expense, the time to rezone this corner property, R4. Until the staff ran these statistics, we did not realize that this plan was this close to compliance with the R3 restriction. And with the possibility that these units can be reduced by four square feet of coverage on the ground per unit, the staff does believe this is an approvable plan with these 19 conditions. To finish reviewing the conditions, number 17, denote construction access location. We believe that would be from Red Coach and Laredo, but that is a technical matter that needs to be cleaned up. Number 18 is the condition that will ensure that the units be reduced in size, if not rezoned. That would be that there would have to be a documentation of compliance with the R3 floor area and lot coverage requirements. As you can tell from the staff calculations, the development does comply with the floor area restrictions. It's 46%, it's allowed to be as high as 50%. So that is in compliance, even at the current. Staff did not calculate the amount of impervious surface area. We would rely on the applicant to complete that. And of course, the off-street parking is proposed at 19 spaces, including garage units on these six townhouses. In total, the staff is comfortable recommending the original development plan for six townhouse units, knowing that two things will have to happen. That setback from the park will need to average at 20 feet minimum, as I've described to you. And secondly, these units will have to shrink by four square feet each in order to comply with the 25% lot coverage restriction. However, the staff can recommend approval However, the staff can recommend approval of the original submission, the May 3rd submission of this development plan, with these 19 conditions. And we would prefer that to the current submission for five townhouse units. The primary problem with the five-unit submission is one townhouse is orphaned or out by itself, which is not permitted under the Article 9 restrictions. The two-unit townhouse proposal does comply. So, staff has run the calculations. We believe it's very close to being in compliance with the R3 requirements. We've outlined to you the changes that will be necessary in order to certify this plan. But the staff does believe the original submission, if modified as I've described, will comply with the R3 restrictions. Even though your subdivision committee recommended postponement of this plan a week ago, and it has not been revised in the intervening week, the staff does recommend approval of the May 3rd version of the development plan with the 19 conditions listed on your agenda. This is a most unusual presentation for you today. At this time, I would be glad to try and answer any questions you have about our recommendation on this plan. Any questions for Mr. Saleh? Ms. Copeland? And Mr. Saleh, I'm puzzled as to how we can take what I perceive to be dedicated open space to the old red coach, and turn it and flip it in to high-density housing. Doesn't that leave the old red coach development with a deficiency in open space? If I could refer you to the third page of the staff handout. And if I can ask you to look in that table at, it's about two-thirds of the way down, the fourth line from the bottom. That is the open space for each phase of this development. The smallest area of open space in phase one is 12%, and there are more open space areas for the other phases that comply with that minimum. Staff believes that the open space, since this lot will have over 22% open space, that this will still comply with the R3 requirements, even if we take the parking out, the clubhouse out, and the pool out that's there, and replace it with the townhouses and the parking. Overall, the entire development will still comply with the minimum open space requirements for the development. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Salley? I guess not, Bill, thank you. Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission and members of the planning staff, my name is Mike Robbins, and I'm here on behalf of Foster Rowan Incorporated to represent our clients for the subject property. We are in agreement with the 19 conditions, and I would like to request your approval based on Bill Salley's very competent and capable presentation. Any questions for Mr. Roberts? I guess not. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to comment on this development plan? Mr. Salley, you have anything else you want to add? Mr. Roberts, I assume you're all right then. Okay, we'll turn it over to the Commission for your disposal of this item. You understand what we're up against here, and we'll be glad to proceed to conclusion. Ms. Phillips? I'm sorry, we don't have to make a motion. Do you have any questions or discussion items? I don't, I'm ready to make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2010-29, Redcoats of Lexington Phase 5 with the 19 conditions as indicated on our staff report. Is there a second? Motion been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? If no discussion, we'll vote when we see it on the screen. Motion passes, thank you. We'll take five before we go a little further. ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Okay, Cheryl. I would like to turn to page 7. We're going to look at DP 2010-30 Anderson 2 Subdivision. This is a preliminary subdivision and final development plan located at 425 Childsburg Road. Real quick, we have Childsburg Road that comes up and we have the curve. We have Jacobson Park right here to the southwest side and then we have additional residential. We have Mr. Tucker's property and then additional residential properties to the northeast. This property, the proposal for this is to come in and create 38 single-family lots. We have a greenway. We have a road drive coming in, connect over in the future. They have some common open space. We have a setback off of Childsburg Road of 200 feet. The subdivision committee reviewed this and recommended approval with 21 conditions. The first nine conditions are just typical sign-offs from the different divisions. We have several cleanup conditions, notes that need to be added to the plan and then we have two discussion items as far as including the 21 conditions. These discussion items, Tom Martin is going to go over these with you and explain. If you have any other questions? Any questions for Cheryl before Mr. Martin goes over the discussion items? If not, thank you, Cheryl. Thanks. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, as Cheryl mentioned, there are two discussion items on this plan among the 21 conditions that were recommended by your subdivision committee as approval for this plan. They are related. They are condition 18 and 20. 18 is discuss the timing of the wetland construction in the greenway and then item 20 discuss number 11 on the plan referring to the 25-foot stream management area. Now, again, on your plan, here is your greenway as it affects this property and the street crossing is here through the greenway. There is floodplain outlined here. Here is the entire stormwater management plan for this area of the expansion area. This is area 2B and 2C. Here you have the interstate. This is Jacobson Reservoir, the park area. The property in question, you can see the hard right turn in Childsburg Road right here. The property in question is here on this map. Again, here is that turn. There is the property running back. Jacobson Park is here. You have a handout that's a smaller version, page size, of this property, and they've also placed one up on the overhead for you as well. The issue for number 18, the item of discussion, are these notations. And if you see these notations here, these are constructed wetlands. They are items or features, I should say, that were identified in the stormwater management plan that you see before you. Staff has raised the issue of the timing of that construction for several reasons. First and foremost is, of course, wetlands are part of a system. Obviously, we believe there's some coordination of that. The wetlands that you see on this plan are not just on this property. They are on the adjoining property upstream particularly. There are more wetlands called for. And I would add that if you look downstream towards the reservoir, this plan, which was done during the expansion process, identifies existing wetlands in this area along the reservoir. So we have constructed wetlands obviously with a relationship or an implied relationship with these existing wetlands here. When you cross with this stream crossing, some wetland area does exist on this property downstream from the crossing. The rest of those designated wetlands, those constructed wetlands that you see in the plan would be upstream. The issue is the appropriate timing of the construction of those wetlands. Item 20, which is note number 11 on the plan, which was a 25-foot stream management area, this was a note that was placed on the preliminary development plan at the request of our green space planner in a desire to be sure that there was a no-mow zone within the greenway next to the stream. That note is not necessary on this plan due to the wetlands construction on this property within the stormwater management area. Obviously with constructed wetlands, you're not concerned about it being mowed in that area, so our greenway planner was happy with that and agreed that that note could come off the plan. So that's the association there. The nature of the crossing on the property, of course, is an issue in that it will, of course, have to be designed appropriately to cross the stormwater management area. It will have to assist in the development of the wetlands. Again, they are features that are identified in the stormwater management plan. They are features that we believe may very well be exactable features. We think the timing, again, is very important, and we understand the challenges that face this property owner and others, adjoining property owners, in the appropriate development of these wetlands in conformance with the plan. And I would add that normally, again, wetlands are a water quality issue generally and not a stormwater management issue per se. But staff would be concerned and would like to make sure that the timing of the wetlands, both below the street crossing and above, are addressed appropriately and in such a manner that this body is aware of how they're going to be addressed and how that's going to be accomplished. With that, I'll try to answer any questions. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Owens? Mr. Martin, you were talking about this property and I guess property upstream being constructed wetlands. What's downstream right now is existing wetlands? Yes, sir. And if you look at it, and I know you have a very small-scale plan and it's difficult to see, but I'll outline it on this one. In your key, where everything is explained, there's a solid line, and you can see it on this. That designates existing identified wetlands at the time that this stormwater management plan was prepared. The designated wetlands have a broken line. So the direct and simple answer is yes, sir, they are existing wetlands downstream. Mr. Holmes? Has engineering been sure that they've been involved with construction in the wetlands? Have they been sure that they've been doing the construction? Yes, sir. It's a design issue, and engineering, I'm sure, will be very much involved in making sure that those things are done correctly. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? The question I have, Mr. Martin, is will a 404 permit be required to do this? I will have to defer that question to the applicant's engineer or our Department of Engineering. There will be a considerable number of permits required, both at the federal and state level, for this crossing, for any work that takes place in this area. It is a FEMA floodplain, a blue line stream. So, yes, I'm sure there will be a considerable amount of permits required. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, thank you, Mr. Martin. Petitioner? Applicant? Good afternoon. I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners here on behalf of Anderson Communities, or Dennis Anderson. And Dick Murphy and Mike Kraft are also here, as well as Dennis. You can speak if necessary. Tom pretty much summed up the issues, and I think I kind of missed it, but I think what we were looking for was to remove number 20 as a condition and change 18 to resolve timing of wetlands, because that's kind of a detail that we'll have to work out with the staff. As far as permits, I'm not exactly sure if a 404 wetlands permit is required to construct the wetlands, but I'm sure the Division of Engineering will make sure we and the State Division of Water will make sure we're following all the proper procedures for that as we proceed through with the design of the wetlands. I don't have anything to add, but I would request your approval with the 20 conditions. Any questions? Any questions, Mr. Barrett? I'm concerned about permitting and the timing of this development plan with respect to permitting, because we've gotten in trouble in the past in this neck of the woods. And my question is, have you all made application? Has anyone been out from the Corps of Engineers to flag these wetlands? The wetlands do not exist. They're created wetlands on our property as part of the expansion area plan. There was the master plan for the expansion area, and then that was followed up with the map there that was done by Commonwealth Technologies for the LFUCG. And there's a manual that goes along with the map to delineate not only the created wetlands, but all the stormwater management plan in the expansion area. So there's nothing to see. There's no wetland on site. Well, I mean, I'm not a hydrologist, but I'm a physical scientist, and it goes to the floodplain. Yeah, you've got a wet area connecting to another wet area. My guess is that there are hydric soils and hydric vegetation on site, and if you had a representative from the Corps of Engineers, I would bet that there are wetlands on site that probably need, because we've gotten in trouble on this before, again, I question the timing of permitting. Well, we're not aware of any wetlands on site. There are wetlands on the Jacobson Park. Those are clear. Beyond the banks of the creek, I did not observe any wetland or aquatic plants. Are you certified by the Corps of Engineers? No, I'm not. But they're not identified on the plan, so we'll create the wetlands is the deal. Ms. Phillips, I might point out that we need to get this, because this will give us the plan for development. Then we can go and get all the rest of the permits. We're not sure if a 404 permit is required, because I think a 404 is more of a point source discharge of a storm sewer, and it may be other permits that we'll have to get on that. Dennis isn't planning on starting construction until next year, and the reason for that is we want to go here and then give time to get the rest of the permits that we need to do this and get this done. So this is sort of we need to have the development plan there so we can say, okay, here's what we show on the land. Now here's how we're going to have to work and get the permits to do that. Any questions for Mr. Murphy or for Mr. Barrett? Ms. Copeland? When I see this map, it looks to me like there's four white dots, and those are four linear dotted spaces, and those are offsite. Will you be constructing those? Will you be constructing wetlands that are offsite to make your development work? Well, this is what we want to talk to the staff about, the timing of this, because the constructed wetlands actually stretch onto others' property. And what we want to talk to them about is whether we build we'll probably, it's not best to do ours alone individually now. When they do the wetlands, they're going to have to study everything from the big storm water, the regional storm water detention basin on the guest property down to the reservoir and do all their calculations about the elevations and everything, and it will involve other property as well. Now we only control our property, and we can, of course, build the wetland on our property. So understand it's an item that has been taken into account in the exaction process. So there's money there to do it. Now the question is, should we do it now when only this property is developed, or should we develop our property in a way which will allow the constructed wetland and then wait and actually construct it when the other property is developed so we see how it's going to impact them and what the exact elevations ought to be. That's what we're trying to work through with the staff, and that's what we were talking about when we said resolve the timing of construction of the wetland. It's really an issue of should we do it just for this property, even though this is just one small piece of a larger constructed wetland, or should we say let's construct our property so that we can do it, leaving enough space for this, and work out the details and build it. We can probably work out the details now. We can work out the plan to do the whole thing right now. We just can't build on somebody else's private property to the, we can't build on somebody else's property over here. See, the wetland is going to be coming up here. And we can't build that right now. It's an exactable item. I think if Dennis built it right now, he could use it as a credit against the quarter million dollars of exactions he's going to have to pay on his property. If he doesn't build it right now, he doesn't get a credit. He has to pay those exactions in so the money is there to do it. So it's not a question of, you know, whether it will be done, because it will be done. It's a question of what's the best time to do this on the property. Is there a proposed wetland to be built on the Jacobson Park side of the bridge? Well, my understanding is that that already exists, but I'm sure that's going to have to be studied as part of this, because I think the study will have to go down the reservoir to see if there's going to have to be alterations made to that. I mean, I imagine they're going to be pretty hesitant to alter an existing wetland that's already there, but I think that's going to have to be part of the study. But this development is responsible for all four of those upland marshes, wetlands? Well, technically, we're responsible for our property. Now, before this can be constructed, even on our property, we're going to have to study the whole thing so it works together. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Mr. Owens? Mr. Murphy, you've got your piece of property, you've got Mr. Tucker's piece of property. Who owns the piece of property to the right? I'm going to go on this one. This is Dennis' property here. Correct. This is Mr. John Tucker's property, as I understand it. This was developed by Barlow Homes. It appears like it's built out at this point and fully developed. And then Dennis had Still Meadow, which is on the other side of the Barlow Homes development. The Barlow, and I don't know if you can answer this, staff might have to, the Barlow property, it looks like to me on these maps there's supposed to be constructed wetlands on that property as well. Has that taken place? I do not know, and I couldn't tell from the maps whether there's supposed to be one on Barlow property or not. So I guess we need to get the staff to respond to that. Okay. One other question, I guess, I don't know, might be for, I guess it's for you. If this is constructed now, if the roadway is constructed now, and you do not create the wetland areas, what happens downstream? Will they continue to stay as wetlands? Yes. Oh, yes, yes, because we can't disturb the amount of water going in there. Okay. So, Mr. Murphy, what I'm trying to think through here is that you all would develop up to where the floodplain starts. It's phase one, is that what you're looking at? I mean, I know we're talking about apples and oranges here, but in my mind I'm trying to think, how would you develop this property not having access to the other property and not start constructing the wetlands? Well, I don't know how Dennis is going to phase it, but what we're saying is we can, if we build the road here, we're just going to have to do it in a way that's not going to interfere with the construction of the wetlands. So we're going to have to study that and prove that to the appropriate people that that will not interfere with the construction. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Barrett or Mr. Murphy? The road crossing that's in a known floodplain? It is? I believe that's a floodplain, but you're allowed to cross a floodplain with roads. That's pretty routine. But we know that. That's my question. We know that that delineates. Yeah, that's in a floodplain, yes. Yes, we know that's in a floodplain. And we know that the floodplain does not extend either north and south on that plot? I think Tony's delineated the floodplain real well. Yeah, he's got the limits of the map. We've got the limits of the floodplain right here. He's delineated them very well on this. They're based on the contour line. Do you want to do it now? Correct. In response to Commissioner Penn, Chairman Penn, essentially we have to do a comprehensive plan whether we phase it or not. It is our intention to build the first phase. But we have to do a comprehensive plan so that we get the elevation of the road on this side correct so that we can make the crossing and move on to the back. So we will go ahead and engineer the whole site and get all the permits for the whole site before we even start the first phase. Okay. But we've got to have a comprehensive plan. It's the same way with their wetlands. That's not about floodwater retention. That's about clean water. And on that, when we study it, whether I do it or somebody else does it, if I do it, I would get credits towards my exactions. If somebody else does it, they would take the exactions I've paid in. I've paid in over three-quarters of a million dollars exactions on this road and nothing has been built on my property. They're going to take some of that money and pay for it one way or the other. But they have to plan all of them. You can't just plan one of them. And then even there, you know, whether it's built at once or whether I put in my part and the other people put theirs in as they develop their properties. The front of the Barlow Farm, I believe, is controlled by the city. I think it's already been dedicated to them. Nothing is going to be built on that piece of land. Okay. Thank you. That helps me a lot. Thank you. Any other questions? I don't know whether it's Mr. Murphy or Mr. Anderson or Tony. Two things. One, in an earlier preliminary plan, I guess preliminary plan, I guess it's Andover Creek Lane was proposed to come in eventually to this. Is that going to happen now? Or would that ever happen now? Yeah, I think. It wouldn't hook up until Tucker has something. But the hookup from Andover Creek comes in right here. It's already hooked up to the Barlow property. Okay. Well, you're showing there where it says Tucker Crossing Way. Right here is where it's hooked up. Yeah, well. It's already hooked up. Your corner cord there at the end of your property, you're showing a proposed access eventually there. The original plan that we saw 60 days ago, if you go about halfway down to your property, showed that as well. Is that going to be connected eventually? No. What we wanted were two access points. Okay. Before we had here and here. Now we've got here and here. Okay. All right. So there's still two access points. And just one final question. Since we saw this 60 days ago and saw a different plan, what's changed in 60 days to bring this to us now? Well, Mr. Tucker commented at the hearing that he didn't want us to come in condemning his property to hook a road up. One, we can't do that. Two, we wouldn't do that. But it just kind of turned the lights on that we need to go ahead and make plans. So we made the adjustment for that reason. Thank you. This was the last hearing we were here with you all. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Sadley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do not have a record of the affidavit for the signposting. We're just wanting to make sure we can get that in the record, please. Let me do that first. I got the sign that was posted in the affidavit. That was a quick response, Tony. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Ms. Galt is handing out to you copies of the EAMP compliance statements that the applicant has provided. As you are aware, under the approval of this plan requires that you define that this plan is in compliance with the elements of the EAMP. The future land use element of this plan falls well within compliance of the future land use in that there are three units per acre. units per acre, and this is consistent with the future land use. As you can see, again, there is a handout that states future land use element and gives a description. There is a community design element aspect of that as well, which deals with the greenways. And as has been discussed, there is a greenway on this property, a greenway that will be developed as part of the overall greenway system, neighborhoods. This is a distinct neighborhood. It will eventually, of course, be tied into other neighboring existing neighborhoods in this expansion area. There are no collector streets in this particular development. There is a scenic resource element to which it complies, and this is the setback here with the open space, and that is relative to Childsburg Road, a rural scenic road. The community design elements, again, are those elements of the neighborhood development, the greenways, the neighborhoods, and the rural scenic road. Now we do have an infrastructure statement, and that was handed out to you and is titled in somewhat smaller lettering, infrastructure statement. And the infrastructure in this area is actually very straightforward, and there is not a whole lot required under the AMP. It is a local street. Sewers aren't a feature of the AMP. It's collector roads and those types of things. Sanitary sewers are being provided. We have, of course, the stormwater management plan that you've seen. Those items such as solid waste, parks, libraries, those types of items are all present in the area. So they do substantially meet the infrastructure requirement of the AMP for this property. What you have seen before you today and what is a considerable aspect of this infrastructure statement is, again, the wetlands discussion, and the wetlands are identified in the stormwater management plan. They are part of the AMP. The issue that you heard before you and the concern I think staff has expressed and the applicant has addressed for you is how best to address the construction of these wetlands and the timing. And this is one of those situations where they are identified, and to be compliant, they need to be constructed. So of course the issue is, is that really the best approach, and should we have a timing mechanism and should we approach it completely and as one total project? Staff believes that they are substantially in compliance with the infrastructure, but that it would be very difficult until the wetlands are actually constructed to state that they are in full compliance with the AMP infrastructure plan. And I might draw as an analogy for you the Providence Parkway discussion about the regional sewer system and how we made the point that until that's actually constructed and in line and the trunk lines built, it's difficult for anyone in that area to fully comply with that aspect of the AMP. Again, that plan, some of those elements were outside the applicant's control. In this case, you have wetlands that are also outside of their control. And so again, that brings us back to the reason we had on your plan in a discussion item on the timing of those wetlands. So again, staff would say to you that we do believe the applicant's plan is in compliance with the future land use and community design elements and in substantial compliance with the infrastructure component of the AMP. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin on this part of it? Thank you. Thank you. All right. Citizens' comment. Do we have any citizens' comment? Hello, once again, and I thank you all for your time today. There was one comment made here a while ago. Mr. Tucker, you need to state your name and address. My name is John Tucker. I am the party that's been representing my family here. The part about the compliance about the Tucker Way crossing, they do not have an easement for that road to be completed. That comes across me again. So that's been a false statement today that you've been fed. The next thing is we have water concerns, which you all are very much aware of. If we're going to build a road across here to elevate it up out of the floodplain, they will have to raise it approximately five feet in elevation. Maybe I'm a little off, maybe four feet. But to raise that, that means they will be impounding more water up on my property in the wetlands floodplain area. Just because you have a floodplain does not give you the right to impound water up on somebody else's property and flood them out. This is an issue by law that's been going on for years, not only here but in other cities. We have sit and watched this happen time and time again. Like I told Mr. Anderson, I'm not against him developing, but let's do it right before we leave here. And as far as the 404 permit, we have proved in the past you can't build a road across the Blue Line stream without obtaining one from the Corps of Engineers. We proved that before. So, I mean, the 404 is a requirement that needs to be added on the stipulation today. It needs to be examined by the Corps of Engineers and it needs to be defined whether we have a wetlands in that area or not. I mean, there's been some questions, but every time we've ever talked about it, it comes up as a wetlands. So, yeah, it may not have been proven, but it needs to be examined. That's all I'm saying about that today. Now, as far as the flooding, we have some pictures that's been coming out of the gauging stations down on Childsburg Road to give you an idea of approximately how much water is coming down. I brought a few pictures along today of what happened May 2nd. This is not the peak flooding of this type of stream at Childsburg Road, and I want you to understand that, because we don't know exactly how far it does peak, because this is the part that comes through the flood gauging station, and it peaks at 795 feet in 2008 when we had the September 2nd flood, which was supposed to have been the 100-year flood. I keep told that we're in a 100-year flood plain, but I keep getting one about every 60 days, so I'm really kind of having a good time here. I know that Guest Properties has filed for a closure or adjustment of the FEMA flood plain area upstream. We're told this retention pond works well. Wow, yet to see it. When you see the pictures, you'll understand my concern here in just a minute. We sit and watch this time and time and time and time again. We now have discovered that there are four other properties discharging water below the gauging station, 36-inch pipes coming out of their stormwater sewers. Steel Matters has two of them. Andover Creek has the third. And then we found out this week that Stewart Hall is dumping water into it from another direction across the front, coming down Charlesburg Road. I haven't went up through Stewart Hall to see how many pipes or 36-inch pipes are coming out of their stormwater to dump into this. So these are things that's coming in below the gauging station before it gets to my property that I'm getting. So we've got approximately a 600-foot flood plain here today that goes from time to time. I have seen it underwater. And you'll see a picture of it here in just a minute at Shelter No. 5 at Jackson Park, water within five feet of the concrete shelter. This was 359 cubic feet per second, not 795. So like I said, I'd like to present the picture so you'll have it on record today to prove. This is a particular picture taken at approximately 9 o'clock the second day of May this year. This is Charlesburg Road upstream from me. This is at the bridge where the gauging station is. That is a picture of the gauging station in the next picture. It's right beside the bridge, and this water is passing it. It is not going through this gauging station. Here's another car going through it at approximately 9 o'clock. As I said, I took them at different times during the day. And these are great pictures. I mean, we get to see the license numbers. We can go ask these people what kind of water did they go through. This is a picture of the property that's my property upstream or my family's property. This is what it looks like. We've got about a 600-foot area that's getting more water every day. This is the net at Shelter No. 5 at Jackson Park. This is how far the water is up to the edge of the road. This is another picture of the same shelter and the water, how close it is. If you can go out there, the net stays up year-round, and you can see how much water is coming through there. This is the Lexington Police Department. Great picture. This was at about 7.30 that afternoon. I thought this was great because the police department can't say they're not aware of it because guess what? We've got their picture involved in it now. And this was the second day of May this was happening. And these were taken at different times during the day. This was about 7.30 at night when I went back over 6.30, 7.30 at night. Yes, sir, it's Charlesburg Road. This is right there by the bridge, right there. Actually, it's 501 Charlesburg Road to be the address, the actual address. So all this is coming down, plus four other amenities to put water on me, and they want to raise the elevation of the creek below me to impound water back on me. The only thing you can do that I feel safe to do is build a bridge across it. If you want to build a bridge, hey, have at it. But if you're going to impound water on me, we need to get some easements or something obtained so you can do your wetlands and do your thing. Quit sending the water my way. I mean, this is going on. It's been designated. It's been going on for years. You can go to the USGS gauging station. I brought a copy of this today so you kind of get an idea of what's happening so we can have an actual reading of how much water is coming through here. And you can type up one day or seven days, but I brought this for the May 2nd so you kind of get an idea of how much water. This is actually a picture of the gauging station itself. This is the depth of the water that's coming through that stream at that point. It's right at five feet when it comes over Charlesburg Road. Actually, we're finding out that a foot and a half, one foot and six inches, there's so much sediment that's been put in the creek, that red line you see where the little triangles are, that is the actual where the water starts. That is the no-flow zone now on this gauging station. That's how much sediment has come downstream from these developments. That's where the water picks up. Now we get two foot of water, it's flooding. Now put the other one up, please. This is actually cubic feet per second coming through the gauging station. As you see, when it reaches 300 cubic feet per second, the water starts flooding. The road floods. This stuff is available online. It's not hid. It's nowhere. I mean, it's in conjunction with the city of Lexington. We pay for having this gauging station there. I was also informed this week that there's another gauging station downstream at the shelter number five that we showed the pictures of. It has not operated since 2001. The funding was dropped on it. The gauging station itself is still there. This was to help the master area expansion plan gauge how much water is being done through development. We'd like to know what happened to the funding. Where is the research? Who was supposed to be watching it? There's questions that need to be answered. So I come to you today. I think this needs to be put on hold until we get some easements obtained or resolved before any more development happens out here. But I know you all have an agenda to follow. It meets the comprehensive plan. You're all doing the best you can. But I don't think you need to be impounding water on somebody without obtaining an easement right away. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Tucker? Mr. Owens. Mr. Tucker, if you would. Mr. Crackers, put one of the picture up that was green that I think you said it was your property. Yes, sir, the one with the ‑‑ showed the creek, the stream itself, and the floodplain with the water on it. Yeah, that right there. That's your property? Yes, sir. Adjoining this, yes, right in this area. Sorry, I have to grab the microphone. This is the area right in here where it's taking place, right above the creek. The actual creek is here. And this is the actual picture looking into it right across right here, right in this area right here. The what looks like a lane that goes down? Yes, sir, that's the roadway that we use to go to the back of the farm. Okay. Actually, it needs to be mowed so you can see more water, but I'm a little behind on things, you know, trying to catch up to crops. Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wants to comment on this? There's no other citizens' comment. Petitioner, do you have any rebuttal comments? We certainly understand the concerns with flooding on Charlesburg Road. I didn't object to those because I don't think they're relevant to this case. I didn't object to them because I think Mr. Tucker ought to be able to present whatever information he feels he should to you, and I know he wants to make all public officials possible, put them on notice of the flooding situation on Charlesburg Road. However, our land here, this property doesn't drain to Charlesburg Road. It drains directly to the reservoir. The reservoir is right down here. It comes down and drains to the reservoir here. Our property does not cross, the water does not go across Charlesburg Road. There is certainly a situation on Charlesburg Road, but this is downstream from the gauging stations, which he was mentioning. Downstream from the regional detention facility, and it's designed so that the water from this property will go straight into the reservoir without detention so that when the water from the regional detention facility up on the guest property on the other side of the road, when that does fill up and it reaches that outlet pipe, that our water is out of the way and out of the system so that it doesn't contribute to any backup or ponding situation on other people's property here. When we do the road here, we're going to have to design it so we do not impede the flow of any water across Dennis' property. Dennis did make the comment that we would eventually have the access up here through Tucker's Crossing Lane. Mr. Tucker, of course, is correct. There is no easement for that at the present time. As in all developments that you all have, we are required to stub this in so that when this road is here, when and if Mr. Tucker's property is ever developed, we don't know when and we don't know if, but if it is, that this road is here so that we will have a tie-in here instead of having situations which you've had, you know, there's a cul-de-sac and you can't tie in and all that sort of thing. We have to stub that in. But, yes, it is correct. There is no easement. We weren't trying to imply that there is an easement or that Mr. Anderson is going to in any way get on Mr. Tucker's property or build any road against his will and without an easement on Mr. Tucker's property. Again, this property is what's before you today, and we understand that there certainly is flooding on Childsburg Road, and we, like all homeowners out there, Dennis lives out there. He doesn't enjoy driving through water any more than anybody else does on Childsburg Road. But this property is not contributing to that problem. The water from this property is not going on Childsburg Road. The water from this property is going straight into the reservoir, and it's part of the overall design. Just going to background, sometimes we get so close to this thing, we don't look at the big picture on it. But as you all know, this was in the expansion area, came in in 1996, and when they did the expansion area, they said, let's not have a hodgepodge of detention basins here and there. This is all going to be developed right now. If not, we're going to do it the right way. And the city said, we, the city, are going to design the stormwater on this entire area, and all the developers are going to do it the way we want it to, which is the right way to do. That was the right way to do it. And we are complying with that, not only because it's what the city is requiring us to do under the master plan, which they did in the late 90s, but that is the proper way for the stormwater to be functioning on this. And this will not be contributing to that issue on Childsburg Road. Thank you. Staff, any rebuttal? Mr. Tucker, you can only respond to what Mr. Marks. Mr. Murphy made a statement. He may not be on Childsburg Road, but the front half of this property, these lots one through ten or one through eight, some of the water from them are coming forward and coming down the stream, which will come across the front of my property, which I'll point out to you here on the map. He failed to tell you this. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but this, like, from lot number four this way, water will come down this way and across and down this property, across the front of my property. Let's turn off the commission. Okay. The commission has questions. Let's go for them now. I guess we're talking about flooding on Childsburg Road. If I'm understanding it right, the flooding on Childsburg Road is just immediately upstream, and the flooding that we saw on Childsburg Road is coming down through this property, correct? Okay. Yeah. And it seems that we're conflating some issues here, the flooding on Childsburg Road. I understand that the water that flows over Childsburg Road will flow through this property at that floodplain. And my question refers to, I think, what you just said, Mr. Tucker. That being said, what is the difference in elevation between, I guess, it's the northernmost portion of the floodplain, the delineated floodplain, and the southernmost portion with respect to Childsburg Road? I'll have to leave it up to one of the engineers. I can see there are a lot of contour lines on that plat, and I'm just trying to understand. Mr. Baird, if you will, get your mic there. Thank you. This is Childsburg Road. The floodplain continues on up into the Childsburg, or into the guest property. So where do you want me to begin? I can't. I want to know if you could point at the map. The green line, I think it's a green line. Okay, keep going. North, go up the road. Up, up, up. No, not Childsburg Road. Up your property line. Yeah, yeah. Up. Keep going. Keep going. Nope, not all that. Stop. What is the difference in elevation between that point and the other side of the floodplain? Between those two points? Yes. And then from the south side of that floodplain to Childsburg Road? I want to know where the water, where that breaking point is, that drainage basin begins and ends, for where it will flow into this wetland along the subdivision road and where it will break and fall towards Childsburg Road. This is a ridge line right here. These three lots will flow into this channel that comes down here into the pond on Mr. Tucker's property, which eventually makes its way into the creek at about this location. So what is the point then of constructing wetlands? You're going to construct wetlands along the road? What is the point of constructing wetlands if there's so much overwash? It would seem to me that the point of constructing wetlands, if you've got flow off this tract of land onto adjoining properties, onto Mr. Tucker's property, then maybe that's a better site, a better location for a constructed wetland to slow down the water flow. Well, the water flow that Mr. Tucker is showing the pictures of is coming over Childsburg Road at this location. Here's the Guess Basin. It's coming through the basin, collects, goes over the Childsburg Road, and then flows down through the floodplain here. We're basically following the stormwater pasture plan, which calls for the wetlands here. I can't really address this. The amount of land, we're adding three lots basically that are in that much of the roadway, which will be contributing to this area here, which will come down here and then go into the floodplain and the wetlands here. The constructed wetlands that you guys are proposing is part of the master plan for stormwater management of the entire expansion area? Yes. And you're just executing that? We're executing this plan. Are you an engineer? No. My name is Mike Craft. We keep talking about the constructed wetlands. Those wetlands, the design of wetlands are very involved. It's a system. When they start to do the design of these wetlands, they will look at the whole watershed area. And I believe the intent, whenever they laid out the expansion area master plan stormwater part, they're saying that we need a water quality feature in this area downstream of the property. So I don't think that the intent was to build those exactly in those white circled areas. It's just that they're saying that they need to be in that area. The idea of these constructed wetlands and this site is for purification before the waters enter the reservoir. Correct. But Mr. Tucker is concerned about runoff from this tract of land onto his property. And wetlands can also serve as a means of slowing down water and allowing water to infiltrate. And is there any consideration for constructing wetlands to try to minimize the impact on the adjoining properties? The adjoining, the water that is flowing to Mr. Tucker now, it's the natural flow of the water. He's downstream of that piece of our property. When we come into, when we start our construction and the design of the construction plans, we will follow, try to follow the existing drainage area of that map. But we will have storm sewer systems that will carry that water so that it doesn't go up to that part of the property. The grade difference, the watershed breaks approximately at lot number three. There's a common area green space, and we would have this water from the street that would probably drain right into this area because that's where it's naturally flowing. And it would dump into this piece of property here, which is the common open space. The only part that you're talking about, that's the runoff that's running there now. We're not adding to the water that's running there. That's what's existing. You will add when you construct the road and development happens on those first three lots. But I think you've answered my question. You're going to leave that front area in a naturally vegetated state? Yes. That's a common open space. We have to leave that area. Okay. The special design area follows that bridge line. That's why that was drawn there. The master plan requires us to maintain 60% of that design area open space. So that's what that green area is defining, 60% up to that ridge. Before we close the hearing and turn it over to the commission, staff, do you all have any rebuttal comments, what's been made here? Okay. Mr. Murphy, you and Mr. Barrett made all the comments you need to make on this. I just want to point out, the picture you have before you is the natural state of affairs on Mr. Tucker's property. And he's looking up toward the Barlow Homes development. And his back is to Dennis' property on this. But Dennis has a floodplain just like, you know, on his property as well. We don't think with the plans we have, and we're going to have to go into a lot more detail to certify them to the city people, state division of water, federal authorities that we deal with, that we're not going to be exacerbating this situation on Mr. Tucker's property. But I just want everybody to bear in mind that, yes, we're dealing with a floodplain. It's an existing designated FEMA floodplain that actually floods with real water as it does right now. And when Mr. Tucker develops his property, if he ever does, that's his right. He doesn't have to. Nobody's ever going to force him to develop. Nobody's going to put any roads across him if he doesn't want to. But if he ever does want to develop, he's got a floodplain across his property as well, which he's not going to be able to develop just like we cannot develop. He's going to have to deal with his water coming in here like we do today too. And the advantage of this property that we don't have in other parts of the community is we do have this master plan already in place on how we deal with this water on a regional basis. And I'm hoping that will deal somehow with the flooding on Childsburg Road. But that is not germane or relevant to what we're presenting to you today on this thing. But it's a regional situation and it's a floodplain now. And after Dennis builds on this property, it's going to be a floodplain there still. There's still going to be water on his property. And I don't think we're supposed to take that out because it's supposed to be upstream and it's going to be wetland at some point. We understand that. Thank you. Mr. Tucker, I think we've beat this thing upstream all we can beat it. If he does elevate the road and he has a single way in and those 15 or 18 houses are flooded in, don't come to me with a condemnation because I give you a feral warning today. This is against the ethics of engineering, what's happening here today. And I will call on this one because I have brought presentations and all today. And this is an ethical issue of engineering. And I thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. I'm going to close the hearing and turn it over to the Commission unless staff has some rebuttal to what comments have already been made. We'll turn it over to the Commission and we'll have discussion on questions that the Commission may or may not have. Ms. Copeland? Yes, I have a question for technical staff. Is it of a concern that we are, with this plan, authorizing a whole bunch of houses with a whole lot of runoff to run into Jacobson Park when the water is already up close to that picnic shelter? Is it okay for us to do that? In other words, if Jacobson Park's water level is already high and this water is from Mr. Anderson's development supposed to go straight pipe into Jacobson Park, is that okay? Good question. Hang on just a second. Mr. Martin, are you going to answer that? I will certainly attempt to. Ms. Copeland, there was a meeting with Parks and with the various parties involved, and they did express concern about flooding in the park area. It has been something they've looked at. They also understood that we have a regional plan that's designed to address that. There is floodplain in that area of the park that, again, fills up with water and does flood, and it's an issue they've had to address now for some time. They did raise, as I said, they did raise a concern in this meeting, but they recognized the aspect of the overall plan as well. Bottom line, is the floodplain getting bigger? Not to my knowledge, no. But engineering, I would defer that technical question to engineering if they indeed thought that was the case. It's not my understanding of how that system is designed to work, nor is it my understanding that it's working any other way than how it's been designed. But, again, that's based on what the engineers tell me. Mr. Chairman, would we be able to ask for engineering to Mr. Newman to come share with us what he knows and what he can tell us as far as what's required here? I do have one other question. Mr. Martin maybe can answer that while he's coming down. And I know what we're talking about is a different piece of property, but the guest property across the road, is it developed yet? The guest property? Yes. It is, of course, partially developed. There's quite a bit to go. As you may, well, okay. Okay. All right. Mr. Newman. Yes, sir. Can you help us as far, I guess, first and foremost, you know, I'm hearing 404 permits. I have not been involved with a 404 permit before. This is the first wetlands that I've seen in two years. And can you help us with some of this and explain what these permits are, what they're going to, what is mandated here that they're going to have, the hoops they're going to have to jump through to get this to happen, if it happens? Yes. In terms of permitting, well, I'll start with the Corps. They'll need to document coverage under the Corps permit. Most likely it will be covered under a general permit. The Corps of Engineers, they have several what they call general permits for certain activities. One of the general permits is for road crossings. So they'll acknowledge, you know, certain standard conditions for a road crossing, a jurisdictional water, what they call a jurisdictional water. They have a defined length of disturbance and conditions that must be met in terms of that general permit. So we'll ask them for documentation of coverage from the Corps permit in some fashion, whether it's a general permit or an individual permit. We'll ask for that prior to the construction plans. We'll also ask for evidence of coverage under the 401 Water Quality Certification, which is a very similar program to the Corps program that I just described. The State of Kentucky administers that program. And as part of that, they acknowledge the Corps of Engineers general permits as well. In some cases, they'll accept those general permits with conditions. There will be a floodplain construction permit that will have to be obtained to cross the stream in the floodplain. There will, for modifications to the existing floodplain, there will need to be a conditional letter of map revision issued prior to construction. But those are the, well, in addition to that, of course, we'll have to have coverage under the state KPDS permit for construction activities. That addresses more of the erosion control issues. So in terms of permitting, those are the permits that I would anticipate would need to be addressed prior to construction. Any other questions for Mr. Newman? Mr. Newman, if Jacobson Park, I mean, if Jacobson Park's lake or reservoir is rising, let's just say it is rising, can we be in danger of impacting the Richmond Road causeway? I don't believe so. The water level there is controlled by, you know, there's an outlet structure there for the reservoir. Doesn't it just go to the other side? It does. There's a reservoir on the downstream side as well. Yeah. And that's, the reservoir is also a zone AE FEMA floodplain, which means it's a, you know, it's detailed, studied with elevations. So when they do the 404, will they look at that? Because we have a lot more land to develop. No. Well, the Corps of Engineers won't be looking at things offsite. Oh, okay. The Corps would be interested in the disturbance to the properties on site. Okay. So they aren't going to look at the big picture? No. I mean, again, the Corps' concern would be disturbances below an area they call, a zone they call ordinary high water. That's one of their jurisdictional areas beyond wetlands, of course. But they would be looking at direct impacts to the jurisdictional water there. Well, doesn't the wetland just filter? It doesn't hold it back? It just filters sort of like a filter? Yeah, it's a water quality type feature. Does it slow it down very much? Well, I suppose there could be some slowing, you know, by virtue of the vegetation. Depending on what had to happen to construct the wetlands, you may very well lower some elevations in there and create some additional storage volume, depending on the details of the design for the wetlands. Any other questions? Yeah, one quick one. We've got two notes on here, note six about Department of Environmental Quality's approval, and note 10 to note FEMA's information. I guess legal or staff, could you tell us with those notes, are we covering the flood issues that have been raised? These are very valid concerns. I just don't know what further is necessary here to make sure this is done in compliance. The note number 10, the note FEMA information on floodplain, that was strictly a technical note to designate the source of the floodplain information, which is the current mapping, which, in fact, has been done on the version of the plan that we have. The Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas related primarily to the steep slopes that are associated with flood management areas. So is there anything else that we need to have on this to ensure that this is done in compliance and doesn't exacerbate problems that Mr. Tucker has raised? I believe that the urban county engineer's acceptance covers the design aspects of this and should, in our estimation, be adequate. Again, we would point out that we brought before you the timing of the wetland construction because we do believe that's relevant. And obviously it's a design issue. Ms. Phillips? I wanted to ask Mr. Martin, this is a development plan, not a preliminary subdivision plan? It is both. Yes, ma'am, in your expansion area that is very common because you have to have a preliminary development plan for your zone change so you get a final development plan. And because it's a single family development, it is a preliminary subdivision plan. They can build off this plan once it's certified. That's the key to the nature of this plan. And the next thing you would see would be a final record plan. Any other questions? Mr. Newman, I have one question before I guess we'll try to wind this up. The city engineering department will be involved in the development of the wetlands. We're not used to seeing creation of wetlands. This is a new thing for us. And so I'm going to assume that the city of Lexington will be involved with the creation of those wetlands and how they're constructed. Yes, sir. I wouldn't anticipate there being construction plans that would detail. I would sign off on them before they were constructed. Yes. And the other question I have for you is the road that's put across there, assuming it's not a bridge, will be built so that it does not impede the flow of water? Yes, sir. It will be. The culvert or bridge or whatever structure we have there will have to be properly sized. And also, you know, since it will likely change the configuration of the floodplain, it will require a conditional letter of map revision through FEMA. So you all would work the developer to ensure that that's done the right way? Right. That would need to be in place before the construction. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? I have another question. This is for I'm not sure who. Will this be a public street or a private street? When and if it gets washed out, who will be responsible for its? It's my understanding they intend to dedicate this street to the public. All righty. You've heard the discussion. Mr. Martin, the question has been asked, are we deleting number 20? You would delete number condition 20, yes, sir. And we're going to resolve number 18, right? Yes, sir. Resolve what we believe would be appropriate. Any further discussion by the commission? Ms. Whitman? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of VP 2010-30 with 20 conditions provided by staff, deleting, that would be deleting number 20 and changing number 18 to resolve timing of wetland construction in Greenway. Is there a second? Mr. Holmes seconded. Any further discussion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Surprise. Come through the house. I don't know what that means. Mr. Gardner? Yeah, Mr. Martin has pointed out, and I apologize, but there is a requirement in the expansion area that there be a binding that the plan is in compliance with the, let me read it, the infrastructure future land use and community design elements. So I guess in this case, which one would be, would all those be? Yes, Ed, it would be appropriate for them to make a finding that it is in compliance with those elements. So we'll need a separate motion to do that? Well, either that or someone could move to amend the prior motion to include it. Let's just do a separate motion being we've already passed the other one. Make an additional finding. Okay. And, Mr. Gardner, do you have a wording for that or do you want us to? Well, I mean, if we just said it was in compliance with the AEMP? I believe that would be consistent with past practice, that you find that it is in compliance with the requirements of the AEMP. Well, if you said to make a finding it's in compliance with the requirements of the AEMP, then. All right. Staff? Yes, sir, prior, when we passed out those handouts, I did make the statement that staff felt that it was in compliance. The infrastructure, we felt, was in substantial compliance. I apologize for that. It's all right. Let's have that motion. I can't make it. Somebody else has to, obviously. And you probably ought to put the development plan number on that. It is in compliance. Development plan 2010-30. You heard Mr. Holmes' motion. Second by Mr. Richards. Any discussion on that motion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Thank you. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Martin, you have something else for us? No, sir. I was just going to point out, again, it's item C on your agenda is performance, bonds and letters of credit. And then I was going to present the next item, item D, to you when you were ready. All right. Let's deal with the call of the bonds. You have at your place a white sheet that gives you the bonds, the call and approval of bonds. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move acceptance of the memorandum from Ron St. Clair to Chris King, releasing and calling bonds dated June 10, 2010. Second by Ms. Whitman. Any discussion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. Okay. That's done now, Mr. Martin. Thank you very much. Page 8 of your agenda, item D, subdivision regulation amendment, item 1. You will find a handout at your seat with the brown cover, brown sheet. This is a report on the recommended amendment to Article 5-4H2 of your subdivision regulations. We presented this to you originally at a work session and have discussed this with you, I believe, on another occasion, and it's been before the subdivision committee as well. And this is a recommendation that we provide an additional engineer and surveyor certification, and it's one that will allow a land surveyor to file a plat and sign a plat and for years now in our regulations we have an engineer's slash surveyor's certification. However, a surveyor couldn't legally actually sign that certification. There was a minor plan certification that they could sign, and it was common for them to do minor plans and utilize that certification. So it's been a very consistent common practice for years that land surveyors sign these minor plats. In this particular case, the issue came up because we had surveyors bringing plats before you where there was no public or private infrastructure, and therefore there was no engineering design required. And unfortunately, the certificate they had to sign stated that they had done and approved the engineering design, and a land surveyor cannot do that. So they were kind of caught between a rock and a hard place, and you guys were having to approve amendments, and one year you had four. I said amendments, waivers, pardon me. You actually had four waivers in one year to address this issue. So, again, staff reviewed this. You have the report. We are recommending approval. This went before your land subdivision committee last week. They recommended approval of this to you, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer. Any questions of Mr. Martin on this? Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of SRA 2010-2, amendment to articles 5-4H to engineers and surveyor certification. Second by Ms. Whitman. Any discussion? If not, vote when you see it on the screen. All right, so moved. Motion passes. Anything else from the staff? Someone didn't vote, is that what you're telling me? All right, whoever didn't vote needs to vote. All right, is that better? She keeps us honest. All right, moving right along. If we don't, we have an addendum in the back. Keep me straight, Mr. Bart, we're ready for the addendum. For your commission items, yes, sir, and that addendum addresses commission items. All right. If it's the committee's pleasure, I need to appoint a nominating committee, and that nominating committee obviously will need to report back to the 24th because I am an ex-officio. Joan and I will be seeing this iron out on the 1st of July, and we'll need to have officers to place at that point. So I'd like to appoint Ed Holmes as the chair with Lynn Phillips and Mike Craven serving with him to fulfill that function and report back to us on the 24th. We don't need a motion to do that, do we? I didn't think so. All right, on the cancellation of the work session, Mr. Martin, you want to present that to us? You want me to just go ahead and do it? I'll just deal with it. Mr. King and I talked first of the week. He's out of the office this week, and we really don't have any work session, anything next week other than that can't be put off to the July work session. So we're going to just vote that we are going to suggest that you vote that we cancel the work session for June the 17th, and I would assume that that will be agreeable. Mr. Chairman, I move that we cancel the work session next week. Motion has been made and seconded. I guess when you see it on the screen, you'll vote. Any of you that vote red can come have a good time by yourself. All right. Is there anything else that needs to come before the commission at this time? There are no staff items, and I'm aware of, unless Ms. Rackers may know of any staff items, training, or that sort of thing. We do have an audio conference on the 30th of June, Wednesday afternoon from 4 to 530. It's the 2010 version of Planning Law Review. So if you could just let me know before, the day before, or the week before. The day before, I'm sorry, Tuesday by 5 o'clock if you're coming or not. Pardon? No. Ms. Rackers, you'll remind us of that on the 24th? Yes. Thank you. If there's no other items, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.  Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.